GSK vs JNJ Stock Comparison
GSK currently leads JNJ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 59. The clearest difference is value, while JNJ has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between GSK and JNJ?
GSK leads the current stock comparison as GSK plc, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GSK plc vs Johnson & Johnson
GSK leads
GSK leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GSK, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
GSK plc
Johnson & Johnson
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GSK over JNJ, 62 versus 59 as of Oct 31, 2026. GSK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while JNJ holds the stronger momentum profile. GSK also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GSK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. GSK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare GSK plc 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 GSK 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.
- Value67 vs 38GSK +29
- Momentum51 vs 78JNJ +27
- Quality73 vs 71Even
- Risk Resilience46 vs 46Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GSK. GSK’s edge is concentrated in value; JNJ keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -22
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (3.0%)
GSK's lead narrowed by 7 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GSK and JNJ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GSK (GSK plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): 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
GSKGSK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GSKGSK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GSKGSK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
JNJJNJ on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
GSKGSK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GSKGSK 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 | GSK | JNJ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21.2% | +3.4% | GSK has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +21.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 16 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GSK | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -8.84% | 5.25% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.708 | $3.980 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.705 | $5.140 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #240 |
JNJ grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 5.25% a year against GSK's -8.84%. JNJ never reduced its regular dividend in the window; GSK did in 2 years.
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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GSK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 62 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | GSKon balance | EPS growth -74.4% vs -96.2%; TTM ROE 28.3% vs 19.7%; gross margin 73.3% vs 68.8%; operating margin 24.1% vs 25.7% — GSK takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GSK | Value 67 vs 38 |
| Technicals | JNJ | Price vs 50-day -0.1% vs 2.9%; vs 200-day -6.9% vs 10% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | GSK | Target upside 21.2% vs 3.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GSK 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 GSK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GSK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GSK +3
- 62 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- GSK +12
- 67 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- GSK +6
- 55 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- JNJ +2
- 59 vs 61
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when JNJ moved ahead of GSK.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GSK
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.63%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish
Only JNJ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.73%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (3.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
GSK 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.71%, AIQ -6 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.73%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1JNJ closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to GSK's edge.
- 2JNJ's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3GSK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate GSK'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
GSK leads on balance| Metric | GSK | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.2% | 0.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -74.4% | -96.2% |
| Gross margin | 73.3% | 68.8% |
| Operating margin | 24.1% | 25.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 28.3% | 19.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.03 | 0.58 |
Performance
JNJ leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GSK | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.6% | 5.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.2% | 2.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.4% | 5.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.2% | 19.2% |
| Year to date | -0.6% | 31% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.7% | 42.4% |
Technicals
JNJ has the stronger structure| Metric | GSK | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.4 | 62.1 |
| ADX (14) | 22.1 | 17.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.1% | 2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.9% | 10% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.5% | 32.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GSK | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.22 | -0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.4 | 1.72 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.7 | 2.6 |
| Max drawdown | -24.4% | -11% |
| Current drawdown | -20.3% | -2.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 20.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GSK or JNJ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GSK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against JNJ's 59. The edge comes from value. JNJ 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 GSK or JNJ the better buy right now?
GSK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GSK over JNJ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GSK leads Value by 29 points; JNJ leads Momentum by 27 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GSK or JNJ?
Analyst price targets imply +21.2% upside for GSK and +3.4% for JNJ, so the Street currently favors GSK. 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, GSK or JNJ?
GSK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GSK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, GSK or JNJ?
GSK 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, GSK or JNJ?
JNJ on the Momentum factor, by 27 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, GSK or JNJ?
GSK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GSK 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 GSK more profitable than JNJ?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.3% vs 68.8%; operating margin 24.1% vs 25.7%; ttm roe 28.3% vs 19.7%. GSK leads on two measures and JNJ on one measure, 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 GSK's lead over JNJ getting stronger or weaker?
GSK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when JNJ moved ahead of GSK.
What would change the GSK vs JNJ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JNJ closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to GSK's edge; JNJ's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; GSK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate GSK's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about GSK and JNJ?
GSK: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. JNJ: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 GSK is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JNJ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GSK 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.