FTV vs GNRC Stock Comparison
FTV currently leads GNRC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 42. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between FTV and GNRC?
FTV leads the current stock comparison as Fortive Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fortive Corporation vs Generac Holdings Inc.
FTV leads
FTV leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GNRC on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FTV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fortive Corporation
Generac Holdings Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FTV over GNRC, 65 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. FTV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. FTV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GNRC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FTV today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. FTV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 23 points over 30 sessions. FTV leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Fortive Corporation and Generac Holdings Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare FTV and GNRC 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.
- Momentum72 vs 23FTV +49
- Risk Resilience67 vs 34FTV +33
- Value66 vs 55FTV +11
- Quality58 vs 49FTV +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FTV. FTV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +20
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
FTV's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FTV and GNRC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FTV (Fortive Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
GNRC (Generac Holdings Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 47.7% against 20.8%.
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
FTVFTV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GNRCGNRC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FTVFTV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
FTVFTV on the Momentum factor, by 49 points.
Lower downside
FTVFTV on Risk Resilience, by 33 points.
Analyst upside
GNRCGNRC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FTV, analyst targets favor GNRC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FTV | GNRC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.5% | +47.1% | GNRC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.2% | +53.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 17 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FTV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FTV | 65 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | GNRCon balance | revenue growth 2.6% vs 10.8%; EPS growth 18.2% vs 95.2%; TTM ROE 8.5% vs 9.5%; gross margin 63.2% vs 39.5%; operating margin 18.2% vs 9.5% — GNRC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FTV | Value 66 vs 55 |
| Technicals | FTV | Price vs 50-day 1.9% vs 0.4%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs -10.2% |
| Risk Resilience | FTV | Risk Resilience 67 vs 34 |
| Analyst expectations | GNRC | Target upside 8.5% vs 47.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FTV and GNRC 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 wide at 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 FTV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FTV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FTV +23
- 65 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- FTV +19
- 63 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- FTV +1
- 55 vs 54
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when GNRC moved ahead of FTV.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FTV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only GNRC
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.18%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Death Cross Active.
FTV 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.48%, AIQ +5 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +4.39%, 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.
- 1GNRC closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTV's edge.
- 2GNRC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FTV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
GNRC leads on balance| Metric | FTV | GNRC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.6% | 10.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.2% | 95.2% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 39.5% |
| Operating margin | 18.2% | 9.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.5% | 9.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.53 |
Performance
FTV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FTV | GNRC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | -9.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.3% | -5.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.1% | -8.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.4% | -9% |
| Year to date | 5.7% | 42.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.9% | 1% |
Technicals
FTV has the stronger structure| Metric | FTV | GNRC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.8 | 39.8 |
| ADX (14) | 16.2 | 25.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.9% | 0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | -10.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 47.7% |
Risk
FTV is the more resilient| Metric | FTV | GNRC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.6 | 2.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.67 | 0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.99 | 0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -14.9% | -40.8% |
| Current drawdown | -8.9% | -34.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.8% | 57.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -5.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FTV or GNRC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FTV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 65 against GNRC's 42. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 FTV or GNRC the better buy right now?
FTV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 FTV over GNRC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FTV leads Momentum by 49 points; FTV leads Risk Resilience by 33 points; FTV leads Value by 11 points. FTV leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by GNRC simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, FTV or GNRC?
Analyst price targets imply +8.5% upside for FTV and +47.1% for GNRC, so the Street currently favors GNRC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FTV. 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, FTV or GNRC?
FTV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FTV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, FTV or GNRC?
GNRC 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, FTV or GNRC?
FTV on the Momentum factor, by 49 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, FTV or GNRC?
FTV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FTV on Risk Resilience, by 33 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 FTV more profitable than GNRC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.2% vs 39.5%; operating margin 18.2% vs 9.5%; ttm roe 8.5% vs 9.5%. FTV leads on two measures and GNRC 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 FTV's lead over GNRC getting stronger or weaker?
FTV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-18, when GNRC moved ahead of FTV.
What would change the FTV vs GNRC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GNRC closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTV's edge; GNRC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FTV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about FTV and GNRC?
FTV: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GNRC: 0 bullish / 3 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 FTV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GNRC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FTV and GNRC 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.