HON vs ITW Stock Comparison
HON currently leads ITW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 70 vs 62. The clearest difference is value, while ITW has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between HON and ITW?
HON leads the current stock comparison as Honeywell International Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Honeywell International Inc. vs Illinois Tool Works Inc.
HON leads
HON leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HON, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Honeywell International Inc.
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HON over ITW, 70 versus 62 as of Oct 31, 2026. HON's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while ITW holds the stronger momentum profile. HON also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HON today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. HON lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Honeywell International Inc. and Illinois Tool Works Inc. 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 HON and ITW 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 46HON +20
- Quality72 vs 60HON +12
- Momentum76 vs 82ITW +6
- Risk Resilience63 vs 62Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HON. HON’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; ITW 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
HON's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HON and ITW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HON (Honeywell International Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
ITW (Illinois Tool Works Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, 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
HONHON on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ITWITW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HONHON on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
ITWITW on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
ITWITW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
HONHON 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 | HON | ITW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18% | +2.5% | HON has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.8% | +16.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | HON | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.09% | 7.07% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.421 | $4.420 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.385 | $6.220 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #251 | #190 |
ITW grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.07% a year against HON's 5.09%. 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HON. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HON | 70 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | ITW | revenue growth -48.6% vs 7.1%; EPS growth -88.3% vs 7.1%; TTM ROE 36.2% vs 101.7%; gross margin 38% vs 44.2%; operating margin 13.3% vs 26.5% |
| Valuation | HON | Value 66 vs 46 |
| Technicals | ITW | Price vs 50-day 3.2% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day -2.3% vs 2.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 63 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | HON | Target upside 18% vs 2.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HON and ITW 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 8 points.
- 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 HON.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28HON lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HON +8
- 70 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- HON +6
- 67 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- HON +12
- 62 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- HON +3
- 54 vs 51
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only HON
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.06%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ITW
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.41%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
HON 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.72%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.01%, 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.
- 1ITW closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to HON's edge.
- 2ITW's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3HON'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 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate HON'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
ITW leads on balance| Metric | HON | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -48.6% | 7.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -88.3% | 7.1% |
| Gross margin | 38% | 44.2% |
| Operating margin | 13.3% | 26.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.2% | 101.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.73 | 3.35 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | HON | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.1% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.9% | 7.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.4% | -2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.3% | 3.9% |
| Year to date | 12.4% | 12.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.6% | 12.3% |
Technicals
ITW has the stronger structure| Metric | HON | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 75.4 | 73.4 |
| ADX (14) | 11 | 16.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.2% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.3% | 2.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 15.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | HON | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 0.48 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.47 | 0.75 |
| Max drawdown | -19.1% | -17.9% |
| Current drawdown | -11.9% | -7.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 21.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HON or ITW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HON is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 70 against ITW's 62. The edge comes from value and quality. ITW 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 HON or ITW the better buy right now?
HON 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HON over ITW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HON leads Value by 20 points; HON leads Quality by 12 points; ITW leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HON or ITW?
Analyst price targets imply +18% upside for HON and +2.5% for ITW, so the Street currently favors HON. 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, HON or ITW?
HON is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HON on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, HON or ITW?
ITW 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, HON or ITW?
ITW on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, HON or ITW?
ITW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ITW 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 HON more profitable than ITW?
ITW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38% vs 44.2%; operating margin 13.3% vs 26.5%; ttm roe 36.2% vs 101.7%.
Is HON's lead over ITW getting stronger or weaker?
HON lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the HON vs ITW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ITW closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to HON's edge; ITW's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; HON'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 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate HON's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about HON and ITW?
HON: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. ITW: 4 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 HON is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ITW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HON and ITW 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.