GTES vs NVT Stock Comparison
Compare GTES and NVT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GTES and NVT?
GTES leads the current stock comparison as Gates Industrial Corporation plc, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Gates Industrial Corporation plc vs nVent Electric plc
GTES leads
GTES leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors NVT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GTES, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Gates Industrial Corporation plc
nVent Electric plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GTES over NVT, 55 versus 48 as of Sep 11, 2026. GTES's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while NVT holds the stronger quality profile. GTES also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NVT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GTES today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. GTES lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Gates Industrial Corporation plc and nVent Electric plc 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 GTES and NVT 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.
- Value66 vs 37GTES +29
- Risk Resilience61 vs 46GTES +15
- Quality49 vs 56NVT +7
- Momentum46 vs 51NVT +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GTES. GTES’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; NVT keeps a meaningful quality 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
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.58%)
Largest factor move: Momentum -14
No new signals fired.
GTES's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GTES and NVT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GTES (Gates Industrial Corporation plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
NVT (nVent Electric plc): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 46.8% against 31.3%.
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
GTESGTES on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GTESGTES on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GTESGTES on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
NVTNVT on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
GTESGTES on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
NVTNVT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GTES, analyst targets favor NVT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GTES | NVT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.6% | +23.5% | NVT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +19.1% | +22.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 12 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GTES. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GTES | 55 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | NVTon balance | revenue growth 10.6% vs 18.5%; EPS growth 179.2% vs 51.1%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 15.8%; gross margin 40.5% vs 37%; operating margin 14.7% vs 17.2% — NVT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GTES | Value 66 vs 37 |
| Technicals | NVT | Price vs 50-day -2.6% vs 3.5%; vs 200-day 2.4% vs 13.9% |
| Risk Resilience | GTES | Risk Resilience 61 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | NVT | Target upside 20.6% vs 23.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GTES and NVT 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 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 GTES.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GTES lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GTES +7
- 55 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- GTES +10
- 52 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- GTES +7
- 54 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- GTES +15
- 56 vs 41
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.83%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.58%)
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.15%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.48%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
GTES 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.6%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +4.65%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1NVT closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to GTES's edge.
- 2NVT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3GTES's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
NVT leads on balance| Metric | GTES | NVT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.6% | 18.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 179.2% | 51.1% |
| Gross margin | 40.5% | 37% |
| Operating margin | 14.7% | 17.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 15.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.67 | 0.41 |
Performance
NVT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GTES | NVT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.9% | 4.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.9% | -9.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.2% | -1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.4% | 39.7% |
| Year to date | 19.4% | 52.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.3% | 67.6% |
Technicals
NVT has the stronger structure| Metric | GTES | NVT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.7 | 51 |
| ADX (14) | 14.7 | 12.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.6% | 3.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.4% | 13.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.3% | 46.8% |
Risk
GTES is the more resilient| Metric | GTES | NVT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.63 | 2.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | 1.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.23 | 1.93 |
| Max drawdown | -25% | -27.5% |
| Current drawdown | -14.1% | -15.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.9% | 45.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GTES or NVT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GTES is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against NVT's 48. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. NVT is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 GTES or NVT the better buy right now?
GTES 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 GTES over NVT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GTES leads Value by 29 points; GTES leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; NVT leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GTES or NVT?
Analyst price targets imply +20.6% upside for GTES and +23.5% for NVT, so the Street currently favors NVT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GTES. 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, GTES or NVT?
GTES is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GTES 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, GTES or NVT?
GTES 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, GTES or NVT?
NVT on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, GTES or NVT?
GTES is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GTES on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 GTES more profitable than NVT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 40.5% vs 37%; operating margin 14.7% vs 17.2%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 15.8%. GTES leads on one measure and NVT 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 GTES's lead over NVT getting stronger or weaker?
GTES lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GTES vs NVT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NVT closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to GTES's edge; NVT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; GTES's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 GTES and NVT?
GTES: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. NVT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 GTES is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NVT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GTES and NVT 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.