GEHC vs HOLX Stock Comparison
GEHC currently leads HOLX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 54. The clearest difference is value, while HOLX has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between GEHC and HOLX?
GEHC leads the current stock comparison as GE HealthCare Technologies Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. vs Hologic, Inc.
GEHC leads
GEHC leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors HOLX on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GEHC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
Hologic, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEHC over HOLX, 63 versus 54 as of Oct 31, 2026. GEHC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while HOLX holds the stronger risk resilience profile. GEHC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HOLX. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEHC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. GEHC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. and Hologic, 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 HOLX 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.
- Value65 vs 36GEHC +29
- Risk Resilience54 vs 81HOLX +27
- Quality51 vs 58HOLX +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GEHC. GEHC’s edge is concentrated in value; HOLX keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
GEHC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GEHC and HOLX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GEHC (GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
HOLX (Hologic, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, analyst expectations.
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
GEHCGEHC 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 29 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
HOLXHOLX on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
HOLXHOLX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GEHC, analyst targets favor HOLX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GEHC | HOLX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.9% | +3.9% | HOLX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 1 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEHC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GEHC | 63 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 45.9% vs -4.8%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 11%; gross margin 42.9% vs 52.8%; operating margin 12.7% vs 17.5% |
| Valuation | GEHC | Value 65 vs 36 |
| Technicals | GEHC | Price vs 50-day 12% vs 1%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs 6.7% |
| Risk Resilience | HOLX | Risk Resilience 54 vs 81 |
| Analyst expectations | HOLX | Target upside 1.9% vs 3.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GEHC and HOLX 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 moderate at 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 GEHC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GEHC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GEHC +9
- 63 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- GEHC +10
- 64 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- GEHC +1
- 55 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- GEHC +7
- 61 vs 54
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 28 when GEHC moved ahead of HOLX.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.25%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
GEHC 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).
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.
- 1HOLX closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEHC's edge.
- 2HOLX generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3GEHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
Split| Metric | GEHC | HOLX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.2% | -0.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.9% | -4.8% |
| Gross margin | 42.9% | 52.8% |
| Operating margin | 12.7% | 17.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 0.92 | 0.48 |
Performance
GEHC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GEHC | HOLX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.9% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 16% | 0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.4% | 1.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.5% | 13.4% |
| Year to date | -7.6% | 2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3% | 23.8% |
Technicals
GEHC has the stronger structure| Metric | GEHC | HOLX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 78.1 | 77.2 |
| ADX (14) | 29.1 | 18.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 12% | 1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | 6.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.3% | 3% |
Risk
HOLX is the more resilient| Metric | GEHC | HOLX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.07 | 1.78 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.1 | 2.45 |
| Max drawdown | -32.5% | -4.5% |
| Current drawdown | -14% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.3% | 10.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -0.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GEHC or HOLX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEHC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 63 against HOLX's 54. The edge comes from value. HOLX is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 HOLX the better buy right now?
GEHC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GEHC over HOLX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEHC leads Value by 29 points; HOLX leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; HOLX leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GEHC or HOLX?
Analyst price targets imply +1.9% upside for GEHC and +3.9% for HOLX, so the Street currently favors HOLX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GEHC. 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, GEHC or HOLX?
GEHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GEHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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 HOLX?
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 HOLX?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 HOLX?
HOLX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HOLX on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 HOLX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.9% vs 52.8%; operating margin 12.7% vs 17.5%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 11%. GEHC leads on one measure and HOLX 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 GEHC's lead over HOLX getting stronger or weaker?
GEHC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 9 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-28, when GEHC moved ahead of HOLX.
What would change the GEHC vs HOLX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HOLX closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEHC's edge; HOLX generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; GEHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 HOLX?
GEHC: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. HOLX: No active signals. 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).
Compare GEHC and HOLX 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.