GIS vs GPC Stock Comparison
Compare GIS and GPC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GIS and GPC?
GPC leads the current stock comparison as Genuine Parts Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
General Mills, Inc. vs Genuine Parts Company
GPC leads
GPC leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support GPC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
General Mills, Inc.
Genuine Parts Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GPC over GIS, 48 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. GPC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while GIS holds the stronger value profile. GPC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GPC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GPC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare General Mills, Inc. and Genuine Parts Company 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 GIS and GPC 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.
- Momentum24 vs 62GPC +38
- Risk Resilience28 vs 57GPC +29
- Quality17 vs 25GPC +8
- Value60 vs 55GIS +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor GPC. GPC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; GIS keeps a meaningful value 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 -3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
GPC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GIS and GPC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GPC (Genuine Parts Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
GIS (General Mills, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 35.5% against 21.9%.
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
GPCGPC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GPCGPC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GISGIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
GPCGPC on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
GPCGPC on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
GPCGPC 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 | GIS | GPC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.5% | +9.5% | GPC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.8% | +32.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GPC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GPC | 33 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | GPCon balance | revenue growth 3.9% vs 4.3%; EPS growth -7.6% vs 20.4%; TTM ROE -1% vs 0.7%; gross margin 33.4% vs 36.2%; operating margin 20% vs 4% — GPC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GIS | Value 60 vs 55 |
| Technicals | GPC | Price vs 50-day -5.3% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day -9.5% vs 11.8% |
| Risk Resilience | GPC | Risk Resilience 28 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | GPC | Target upside -1.5% vs 9.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GIS and GPC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 GPC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GPC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GPC +15
- 33 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- GPC +9
- 42 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- GPC +6
- 46 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- GPC +8
- 44 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 20 when GPC moved ahead of GIS.
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.
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.94%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.63%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
GPC 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.31%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.36%, 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.
- 1GIS closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to GPC's edge.
- 2GIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GPC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
GPC leads on balance| Metric | GIS | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.9% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -7.6% | 20.4% |
| Gross margin | 33.4% | 36.2% |
| Operating margin | 20% | 4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -1% | 0.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.84 | 1.47 |
Performance
GPC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GIS | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.7% | -2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.8% | 0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.3% | 36.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -11.6% | 20.4% |
| Year to date | -22.7% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -28.3% | -4.1% |
Technicals
GPC has the stronger structure| Metric | GIS | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.4 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 20.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.3% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.5% | 11.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.5% | 21.9% |
Risk
GPC is the more resilient| Metric | GIS | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.28 | 0.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.2 | -0.06 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.82 | -0.09 |
| Max drawdown | -37.1% | -38% |
| Current drawdown | -29.6% | -10.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.2% | 33% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GIS or GPC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GPC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against GIS's 33. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. GIS is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 GIS or GPC the better buy right now?
GPC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GPC over GIS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GPC leads Momentum by 38 points; GPC leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; GPC leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GIS or GPC?
Analyst price targets imply -1.5% upside for GIS and +9.5% for GPC, so the Street currently favors GPC. 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, GIS or GPC?
GIS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, GIS or GPC?
GPC 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, GIS or GPC?
GPC on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, GIS or GPC?
GPC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GPC on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 GIS more profitable than GPC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 33.4% vs 36.2%; operating margin 20% vs 4%; ttm roe -1% vs 0.7%. GIS leads on one measure and GPC 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 GPC's lead over GIS getting stronger or weaker?
GPC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-20, when GPC moved ahead of GIS.
What would change the GIS vs GPC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GIS closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to GPC's edge; GIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GPC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 GIS and GPC?
GIS: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. GPC: 3 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 GIS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GPC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GIS and GPC 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.