FMC vs GEV Stock Comparison
Compare FMC and GEV across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FMC and GEV?
GEV leads the current stock comparison as GE Vernova Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
FMC Corporation vs GE Vernova Inc.
GEV leads
GEV leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GEV, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
FMC Corporation
GE Vernova Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEV over FMC, 55 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. GEV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while FMC holds the stronger value profile. GEV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEV today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. GEV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare FMC Corporation and GE Vernova Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare FMC 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.
- Quality16 vs 74GEV +58
- Value75 vs 43FMC +32
- Momentum66 vs 48FMC +18
- Risk Resilience35 vs 51GEV +16
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GEV. GEV’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; FMC keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
GEV's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FMC and GEV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GEV (GE Vernova Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
FMC (FMC Corporation): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 61.3% against 40.4%.
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
GEVGEV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FMCFMC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FMCFMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
FMCFMC on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
GEVGEV on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | FMC | GEV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +31.6% | +30.7% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +66.7% | +40.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GEV | 49 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | GEVon balance | revenue growth 14.3% vs 18.9%; EPS growth 34.2% vs -85.9%; TTM ROE -118.6% vs 83.4%; gross margin 35.3% vs 20.2%; operating margin -71.6% vs 4.4% — GEV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FMC | Value 75 vs 43 |
| Technicals | GEV | Price vs 50-day 2.2% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day -10.5% vs 3.6% |
| Risk Resilience | GEV | Risk Resilience 35 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 31.6% vs 30.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FMC 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 6 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 GEV.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GEV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GEV +6
- 49 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- FMC +2
- 51 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- GEV +11
- 40 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- GEV +14
- 43 vs 57
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when GEV moved ahead of FMC.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.01%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.20%)
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.79%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.37%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
FMC is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -5.63%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.61%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1FMC closes the Quality gap — currently 58 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEV's edge.
- 2FMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GEV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate GEV's advantage entirely.
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
GEV leads on balance| Metric | FMC | GEV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.3% | 18.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 34.2% | -85.9% |
| Gross margin | 35.3% | 20.2% |
| Operating margin | -71.6% | 4.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -118.6% | 83.4% |
| Debt to equity | 2.62 | 0.33 |
Performance
GEV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FMC | GEV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.4% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 18% | -11.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.9% | 6.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -15.2% | 9% |
| Year to date | -12.9% | 41.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -68.1% | 53.9% |
Technicals
GEV has the stronger structure| Metric | FMC | GEV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.1 | 41.3 |
| ADX (14) | 27.1 | 13.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.2% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.5% | 3.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 61.3% | 40.4% |
Risk
GEV is the more resilient| Metric | FMC | GEV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.54 | 1.99 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.1 | 1 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.14 | 1.62 |
| Max drawdown | -73.9% | -24.6% |
| Current drawdown | -68.5% | -21.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.8% | 52.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FMC or GEV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against FMC's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. FMC is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 FMC or GEV the better buy right now?
GEV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 GEV over FMC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEV leads Quality by 58 points; FMC leads Value by 32 points; FMC leads Momentum by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FMC or GEV?
Analyst price targets imply +31.6% upside for FMC and +30.7% for GEV. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, FMC or GEV?
FMC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, FMC or GEV?
FMC 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, FMC or GEV?
FMC on the Momentum factor, by 18 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in 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, FMC or GEV?
GEV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GEV on Risk Resilience, by 16 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FMC more profitable than GEV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.3% vs 20.2%; operating margin -71.6% vs 4.4%; ttm roe -118.6% vs 83.4%. FMC leads on one measure and GEV on two measures, 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 GEV's lead over FMC getting stronger or weaker?
GEV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-08, when GEV moved ahead of FMC.
What would change the FMC vs GEV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FMC closes the Quality gap — currently 58 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEV's edge; FMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GEV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate GEV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FMC and GEV?
FMC: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. GEV: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 FMC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GEV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FMC and GEV with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.