FLS vs GEV Stock Comparison
Flowserve Corporation vs GE Vernova Inc.
FLS leads
FLS leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GEV on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support FLS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Flowserve Corporation
GE Vernova Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FLS over GEV, 54 versus 46 as of Sep 5, 2026. FLS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while GEV holds the stronger quality profile. FLS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GEV. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FLS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FLS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Flowserve Corporation and GE Vernova Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FLS and GEV against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum25%50 vs 15FLS +35
- Quality30%47 vs 74GEV +27
- Value30%62 vs 43FLS +19
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 50FLS +12
5 of 6 evidence groups favor FLS. FLS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; GEV keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
FLS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FLS and GEV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FLS (Flowserve Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
GEV (GE Vernova Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 39.7% against 24.9%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
FLSFLS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FLSFLS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FLSFLS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
FLSFLS on the Momentum factor, by 35 points.
Lower downside
FLSFLS on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
GEVGEV on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FLS, analyst targets favor GEV. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FLS | GEV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.3% | +32.1% | GEV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.9% | +40.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 14 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FLS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FLS | 54 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | FLSon balance | revenue growth 9.4% vs 18.9%; EPS growth 21.9% vs -85.9%; TTM ROE 16.6% vs 83.4%; gross margin 35.1% vs 20.2%; operating margin 12.9% vs 4.4% — FLS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FLS | Value 62 vs 43 |
| Technicals | FLS | Price vs 50-day 1.8% vs -7.5%; vs 200-day 1.6% vs 6.5% |
| Risk Resilience | FLS | Risk Resilience 62 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | GEV | Target upside 19.3% vs 32.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FLS and GEV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on FLS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FLS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FLS +8
- 54 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- FLS +16
- 58 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- FLS +4
- 61 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- GEV +9
- 51 vs 60
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 15 when FLS moved ahead of GEV.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.94%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.15%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.66%)
FLS leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.71%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.01%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1GEV closes the Momentum gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLS's edge.
- 2GEV's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FLS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
FLS leads on balance| Metric | FLS | GEV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.4% | 18.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 21.9% | -85.9% |
| Gross margin | 35.1% | 20.2% |
| Operating margin | 12.9% | 4.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.6% | 83.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.03 | 0.33 |
Performance
GEV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FLS | GEV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.9% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.8% | -5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.3% | -2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.1% | 15.6% |
| Year to date | 11.3% | 44.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 44.2% | 62.5% |
Technicals
FLS has the stronger structure| Metric | FLS | GEV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.4 | 29.3 |
| ADX (14) | 23 | 16.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.8% | -7.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.6% | 6.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.9% | 39.7% |
Risk
FLS is the more resilient| Metric | FLS | GEV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.73 | 2.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.89 | 1.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.58 | 1.83 |
| Max drawdown | -30% | -24.6% |
| Current drawdown | -16.1% | -19.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 50.1% | 52.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FLS or GEV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FLS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 54 against GEV's 46. The edge comes from momentum and value. GEV is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is FLS or GEV the better buy right now?
FLS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FLS over GEV?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FLS leads Momentum by 35 points; GEV leads Quality by 27 points; FLS leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FLS or GEV?
Analyst price targets imply +19.3% upside for FLS and +32.1% for GEV, so the Street currently favors GEV. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FLS. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, FLS or GEV?
FLS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FLS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, FLS or GEV?
FLS on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, FLS or GEV?
FLS on the Momentum factor, by 35 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, FLS or GEV?
FLS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FLS on Risk Resilience, by 12 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FLS more profitable than GEV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.1% vs 20.2%; operating margin 12.9% vs 4.4%; ttm roe 16.6% vs 83.4%. FLS leads on two measures and GEV on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is FLS's lead over GEV getting stronger or weaker?
FLS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-15, when FLS moved ahead of GEV.
What would change the FLS vs GEV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GEV closes the Momentum gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLS's edge; GEV's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FLS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about FLS and GEV?
FLS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GEV: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on FLS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GEV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FLS and GEV with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.