GILD vs JNJ Stock Comparison
JNJ currently leads GILD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while GILD has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between GILD and JNJ?
JNJ leads the current stock comparison as Johnson & Johnson, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Gilead Sciences, Inc. vs Johnson & Johnson
JNJ leads
JNJ leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support JNJ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Johnson & Johnson
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JNJ over GILD, 51 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. JNJ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while GILD holds the stronger momentum profile. JNJ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JNJ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. JNJ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson 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 GILD and JNJ 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.
- Quality30 vs 71JNJ +41
- Momentum74 vs 44GILD +30
- Value37 vs 39Even
- Risk Resilience46 vs 48Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor JNJ. JNJ’s edge is concentrated in quality; GILD keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
JNJ's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GILD and JNJ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
GILD (Gilead Sciences, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
JNJJNJ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GILDGILD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
GILDGILD on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
GILDGILD carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
JNJJNJ 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 | GILD | JNJ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.9% | +9.4% | JNJ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.9% | +21.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 15 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GILD | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 3.04% | 5.25% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.720 | $3.980 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.160 | $5.140 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #305 | #240 |
JNJ grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 5.25% a year against GILD's 3.04%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JNJ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JNJ | 46 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth -6.2% vs -96.2%; TTM ROE -16.3% vs 19.7%; gross margin 79.6% vs 68.8%; operating margin -4.9% vs 25.7% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 37 vs 39 |
| Technicals | GILD | Price vs 50-day 4% vs -2.8%; vs 200-day 13.1% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | JNJ | Target upside -2.9% vs 9.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GILD and JNJ 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 JNJ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JNJ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JNJ +5
- 46 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- JNJ +4
- 45 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- JNJ +11
- 46 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- JNJ +1
- 55 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 17 when JNJ moved ahead of GILD.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
Only GILD
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JNJ
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
JNJ 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.88%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.61%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1GILD closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to JNJ's edge.
- 2GILD's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3JNJ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate JNJ's advantage entirely.
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 | GILD | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.1% | 0.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -6.2% | -96.2% |
| Gross margin | 79.6% | 68.8% |
| Operating margin | -4.9% | 25.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -16.3% | 19.7% |
| Debt to equity | 2.22 | 0.58 |
Performance
GILD leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GILD | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.8% | 4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.5% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 20.1% | 1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.4% | 14.7% |
| Year to date | 26.9% | 25.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 32.8% | 35% |
Technicals
GILD has the stronger structure| Metric | GILD | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.6 | 45.3 |
| ADX (14) | 23.6 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4% | -2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.1% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.9% | 28.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GILD | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | -0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.9 | 1.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.71 | 2.03 |
| Max drawdown | -22% | -11% |
| Current drawdown | -0.6% | -6.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.8% | 20.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GILD or JNJ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JNJ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 51 against GILD's 46. The edge comes from quality. GILD 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 GILD or JNJ the better buy right now?
JNJ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JNJ over GILD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JNJ leads Quality by 41 points; GILD leads Momentum by 30 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GILD or JNJ?
Analyst price targets imply -2.9% upside for GILD and +9.4% for JNJ, so the Street currently favors JNJ. 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, GILD or JNJ?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, GILD or JNJ?
GILD 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, GILD or JNJ?
GILD on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, GILD or JNJ?
GILD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GILD 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 GILD more profitable than JNJ?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 79.6% vs 68.8%; operating margin -4.9% vs 25.7%; ttm roe -16.3% vs 19.7%. GILD leads on one measure and JNJ 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 JNJ's lead over GILD getting stronger or weaker?
JNJ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-17, when JNJ moved ahead of GILD.
What would change the GILD vs JNJ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GILD closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to JNJ's edge; GILD's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; JNJ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate JNJ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about GILD and JNJ?
GILD: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. JNJ: 1 bullish / 1 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 GILD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JNJ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GILD and JNJ 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.