GEV vs HLIO Stock Comparison
Compare GEV and HLIO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GEV and HLIO?
GEV leads the current stock comparison as GE Vernova Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GE Vernova Inc. vs Helios Technologies, Inc.
GEV leads
GEV leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from HLIO.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GEV, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
GE Vernova Inc.
Helios Technologies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEV over HLIO, 55 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. GEV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while HLIO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. GEV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. GEV lead: Reversed — HLIO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GEV now leads by 6.
Compare GE Vernova Inc. and Helios Technologies, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare GEV and HLIO 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.
- Momentum48 vs 24GEV +24
- Quality74 vs 52GEV +22
- Risk Resilience51 vs 69HLIO +18
- Value43 vs 56HLIO +13
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GEV. GEV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; HLIO keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.63%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
GEV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GEV and HLIO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GEV (GE Vernova Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
HLIO (Helios Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, fundamentals.
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
HLIOHLIO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HLIOHLIO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
GEVGEV on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
HLIOHLIO on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
GEVGEV 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 | GEV | HLIO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +30.7% | +26.7% | GEV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.1% | +16.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | 55 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | HLIOon balance | revenue growth 18.9% vs 1.5%; EPS growth -85.9% vs 10%; TTM ROE 83.4% vs 7.6%; gross margin 20.2% vs 32.7%; operating margin 4.4% vs 10% — HLIO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HLIO | Value 43 vs 56 |
| Technicals | GEV | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day 3.6% vs -0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | HLIO | Risk Resilience 51 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | GEV | Target upside 30.7% vs 26.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GEV and HLIO 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 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GEV lead: Reversed — HLIO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GEV now leads by 6.
- Today
- GEV +6
- 55 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- HLIO +1
- 49 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- HLIO +1
- 51 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- GEV +5
- 57 vs 52
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when GEV moved ahead of HLIO.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.79%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.37%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.83%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
HLIO is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +3.61%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.82%, 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.
- 1HLIO closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEV's edge.
- 2HLIO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3GEV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
HLIO leads on balance| Metric | GEV | HLIO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.9% | 1.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -85.9% | 10% |
| Gross margin | 20.2% | 32.7% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 10% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 83.4% | 7.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | 0.02 |
Performance
GEV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GEV | HLIO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.2% | -15.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.6% | -14.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9% | 0.6% |
| Year to date | 41.4% | 27.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 53.9% | 25.5% |
Technicals
GEV has the stronger structure| Metric | GEV | HLIO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.3 | 19.4 |
| ADX (14) | 13.6 | 31.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.6% | -0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.4% | 28.1% |
Risk
HLIO is the more resilient| Metric | GEV | HLIO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.99 | 1.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1 | 0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.62 | 1.33 |
| Max drawdown | -24.6% | -26.7% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | -26.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 52.2% | 39.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GEV or HLIO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against HLIO's 49. The edge comes from momentum and quality. HLIO 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 GEV or HLIO the better buy right now?
GEV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 GEV over HLIO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEV leads Momentum by 24 points; GEV leads Quality by 22 points; HLIO leads Risk Resilience by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GEV or HLIO?
Analyst price targets imply +30.7% upside for GEV and +26.7% for HLIO, so the Street currently favors GEV. 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, GEV or HLIO?
HLIO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HLIO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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 HLIO?
HLIO 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, GEV or HLIO?
GEV on the Momentum factor, by 24 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 HLIO?
HLIO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HLIO on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 HLIO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.2% vs 32.7%; operating margin 4.4% vs 10%; ttm roe 83.4% vs 7.6%. GEV leads on one measure and HLIO 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 HLIO getting stronger or weaker?
GEV lead: Reversed — HLIO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GEV now leads by 6. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-08, when GEV moved ahead of HLIO.
What would change the GEV vs HLIO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HLIO closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEV's edge; HLIO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; GEV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 HLIO?
GEV: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. HLIO: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 GEV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HLIO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GEV and HLIO 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.