GEHC vs GMED Stock Comparison
GMED currently leads GEHC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 63. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while GEHC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between GEHC and GMED?
GMED leads the current stock comparison as Globus Medical, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. vs Globus Medical, Inc.
GMED leads
GMED leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GMED, and its current signal state is conflicted.
GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
Globus Medical, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GMED over GEHC, 67 versus 63 as of Oct 31, 2026. GMED's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while GEHC holds the stronger value profile. GMED also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GMED today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. GMED lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. and Globus Medical, 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 GEHC and GMED 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.
- Risk Resilience54 vs 76GMED +22
- Quality51 vs 71GMED +20
- Value65 vs 54GEHC +11
- Momentum81 vs 74GEHC +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GMED. GMED’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; GEHC keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -5
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
GMED's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GEHC and GMED both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GMED (Globus Medical, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
GEHC (GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation.
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
GMEDGMED on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GEHCGEHC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GEHCGEHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
GEHCGEHC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
GMEDGMED on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
GMEDGMED on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | GEHC | GMED | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.9% | +24.7% | GMED has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +38% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 8 | 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 GMED. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GMED | 63 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | GMEDon balance | revenue growth 3.2% vs 3.9%; EPS growth 45.9% vs 21.7%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 11.6%; gross margin 42.9% vs 68.5%; operating margin 12.7% vs 20.8% — GMED takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GEHC | Value 65 vs 54 |
| Technicals | GEHC | Price vs 50-day 12% vs 0.2%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs -2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | GMED | Risk Resilience 54 vs 76 |
| Analyst expectations | GMED | Target upside 1.9% vs 24.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GEHC and GMED and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 GMED.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GMED lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GMED +4
- 63 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- GMED +2
- 64 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- GMED +5
- 55 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- GMED +1
- 61 vs 62
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when GMED moved ahead of GEHC.
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only GEHC
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
GMED 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.2%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.86%, 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.
- 1GEHC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to GMED's edge.
- 2GEHC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GMED's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
GMED leads on balance| Metric | GEHC | GMED |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.2% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.9% | 21.7% |
| Gross margin | 42.9% | 68.5% |
| Operating margin | 12.7% | 20.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 11.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.92 | 0.02 |
Performance
GEHC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GEHC | GMED |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.9% | 3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 16% | 8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.4% | 1.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.5% | -7.4% |
| Year to date | -7.6% | -6.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3% | 30.5% |
Technicals
GEHC has the stronger structure| Metric | GEHC | GMED |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 78.1 | 73 |
| ADX (14) | 29.1 | 25.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 12% | 0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | -2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.3% | 32% |
Risk
GMED is the more resilient| Metric | GEHC | GMED |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.07 | 0.67 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.1 | 1.54 |
| Max drawdown | -32.5% | -24.3% |
| Current drawdown | -14% | -16.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.3% | 48.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GEHC or GMED?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GMED is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 67 against GEHC's 63. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. GEHC 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 GEHC or GMED the better buy right now?
GMED carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GMED over GEHC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GMED leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; GMED leads Quality by 20 points; GEHC leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GEHC or GMED?
Analyst price targets imply +1.9% upside for GEHC and +24.7% for GMED, so the Street currently favors GMED. 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, GEHC or GMED?
GEHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GEHC 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, GEHC or GMED?
GEHC 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, GEHC or GMED?
GEHC on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, GEHC or GMED?
GMED is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GMED on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 GEHC more profitable than GMED?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.9% vs 68.5%; operating margin 12.7% vs 20.8%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 11.6%. GEHC leads on one measure and GMED 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 GMED's lead over GEHC getting stronger or weaker?
GMED lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when GMED moved ahead of GEHC.
What would change the GEHC vs GMED verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GEHC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to GMED's edge; GEHC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GMED's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 GEHC and GMED?
GEHC: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. GMED: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 GEHC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GMED it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GEHC and GMED 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.