GEHC vs IDXX Stock Comparison
Compare GEHC vs IDXX on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between GEHC and IDXX?
GEHC and IDXX are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. vs IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.
GEHC and IDXX are effectively level
GEHC and IDXX are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate GEHC and IDXX as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. and IDEXX Laboratories, 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 IDXX 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 26GEHC +39
- Quality51 vs 88IDXX +37
- Momentum81 vs 83Even
- Risk Resilience54 vs 53Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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: Momentum -2, 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.
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 IDXX both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
GEHCGEHC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GEHCGEHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
IDXXIDXX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
IDXXIDXX 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 | IDXX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.9% | +25.2% | IDXX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +17.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 63 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | IDXXon balance | revenue growth 3.2% vs 6.6%; EPS growth 45.9% vs 21.6%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 72%; gross margin 42.9% vs 62.4%; operating margin 12.7% vs 32% — IDXX takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GEHC | Value 65 vs 26 |
| Technicals | GEHC | Price vs 50-day 12% vs 3.2%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs -2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 54 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | IDXX | Target upside 1.9% vs 25.2% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GEHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 63 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- GEHC +1
- 64 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- GEHC +2
- 55 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- GEHC +15
- 61 vs 46
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when GEHC moved ahead of IDXX.
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.
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 -4.3%, AIQ 0 points).
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
IDXX leads on balance| Metric | GEHC | IDXX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.2% | 6.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.9% | 21.6% |
| Gross margin | 42.9% | 62.4% |
| Operating margin | 12.7% | 32% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 72% |
| Debt to equity | 0.92 | 0.68 |
Performance
GEHC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GEHC | IDXX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.9% | 1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 16% | 7.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.4% | 0.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.5% | 1.7% |
| Year to date | -7.6% | -16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3% | -12.2% |
Technicals
GEHC has the stronger structure| Metric | GEHC | IDXX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 78.1 | 73.5 |
| ADX (14) | 29.1 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 12% | 3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | -2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.3% | 25% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GEHC | IDXX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.78 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.07 | -0.33 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.1 | -0.57 |
| Max drawdown | -32.5% | -34.2% |
| Current drawdown | -14% | -26.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.3% | 32.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, GEHC or IDXX?
Analyst price targets imply +1.9% upside for GEHC and +25.2% for IDXX, so the Street currently favors IDXX. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, GEHC or IDXX?
GEHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GEHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 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 IDXX?
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 IDXX?
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 IDXX?
IDXX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IDXX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 IDXX?
IDXX leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 42.9% vs 62.4%; operating margin 12.7% vs 32%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 72%.
What do the current signals say about GEHC and IDXX?
GEHC: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. IDXX: 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 IDXX it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GEHC and IDXX 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.