GEV vs GNRC Stock Comparison
GEV currently leads GNRC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 43. The clearest difference is quality, while GNRC has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between GEV and GNRC?
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
GE Vernova Inc. vs Generac Holdings Inc.
GEV leads
GEV leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors GNRC on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support GEV.
GE Vernova Inc.
Generac Holdings Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEV over GNRC, 47 versus 43 as of Nov 7, 2026. GEV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GNRC holds the stronger momentum profile. GEV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GNRC. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. GEV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare GE Vernova Inc. 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 GEV 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.
- Quality76 vs 52GEV +24
- Momentum14 vs 28GNRC +14
- Risk Resilience45 vs 33GEV +12
- Value45 vs 51GNRC +6
2 of 6 evidence groups favor GEV. GEV’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GNRC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
GEV's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GEV and GNRC 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.
GNRC (Generac Holdings Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, fundamentals.
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
GEVGEV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
GNRCGNRC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
GNRCGNRC on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
GEVGEV on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 GEV, analyst targets favor GNRC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GEV | GNRC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +59.1% | +68.8% | GNRC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.7% | +54% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 15 | 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
2 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 | 47 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | GNRCon balance | TTM ROE 85.6% vs 10.8%; gross margin 21.7% vs 39.9%; operating margin 6.4% vs 10.4% — GNRC takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GNRC | Value 45 vs 51 |
| Technicals | GNRC | Price vs 50-day -16.2% vs -10.6%; vs 200-day -17.8% vs -19% |
| Risk Resilience | GEV | Risk Resilience 45 vs 33 |
| Analyst expectations | GNRC | Target upside 59.1% vs 68.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GEV and GNRC 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)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6GEV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GEV +4
- 47 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- GEV +3
- 46 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- GEV +5
- 49 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- GEV +7
- 49 vs 42
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Nov 3 when GEV moved ahead of GNRC.
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.
GEV and GNRC carry the same 4 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.47%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.58%, 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.
- 1GNRC closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEV's edge.
- 2GNRC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GEV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | GEV | GNRC |
|---|---|---|
| Gross margin | 21.7% | 39.9% |
| Operating margin | 6.4% | 10.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 85.6% | 10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.25 | 0.44 |
Performance
GEV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GEV | GNRC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.8% | -10.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -19.5% | -21.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.3% | -14.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -25.6% | -30% |
| Year to date | 18.4% | 29.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 38.3% | 11.1% |
Technicals
GNRC has the stronger structure| Metric | GEV | GNRC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.9 | 41.8 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 23.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.2% | -10.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -17.8% | -19% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 72.7% | 68.6% |
Risk
GEV is the more resilient| Metric | GEV | GNRC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.94 | 2.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 0.75 |
| Max drawdown | -34.4% | -41.7% |
| Current drawdown | -34.1% | -40.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 55.1% | 58.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GEV or GNRC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEV is the stronger of the two as of Nov 7, 2026, scoring 47 against GNRC's 43. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. GNRC is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 GEV or GNRC the better buy right now?
GEV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 GEV over GNRC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEV leads Quality by 24 points; GNRC leads Momentum by 14 points; GEV leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GEV or GNRC?
Analyst price targets imply +59.1% upside for GEV and +68.8% for GNRC, so the Street currently favors GNRC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GEV. 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, GEV or GNRC?
GNRC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GNRC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, GEV or GNRC?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, GEV or GNRC?
GNRC on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, GEV or GNRC?
GEV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GEV on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 GEV more profitable than GNRC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 21.7% vs 39.9%; operating margin 6.4% vs 10.4%; ttm roe 85.6% vs 10.8%. GEV leads on one measure and GNRC 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 GNRC getting stronger or weaker?
GEV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-08 and 2026-11-06. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-11-03, when GEV moved ahead of GNRC.
What would change the GEV vs GNRC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GNRC closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEV's edge; GNRC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GEV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 GEV and GNRC?
GEV: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. GNRC: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on GEV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GNRC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GEV 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.