JNJ vs ABBV Stock Comparison
ABBV currently leads JNJ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum, while JNJ has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between JNJ and ABBV?
ABBV leads the current stock comparison as AbbVie Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Johnson & Johnson vs AbbVie Inc.
ABBV leads
ABBV leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from JNJ. Wall Street currently favors JNJ on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ABBV, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Johnson & Johnson
AbbVie Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ABBV over JNJ, 56 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. ABBV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while JNJ holds the stronger quality profile. ABBV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JNJ. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ABBV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. ABBV lead: Reversed — JNJ led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ABBV now leads by 5.
Compare Johnson & Johnson and AbbVie 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 JNJ and ABBV 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.
- Momentum44 vs 84ABBV +40
- Quality71 vs 60JNJ +11
- Risk Resilience48 vs 44JNJ +4
- Value39 vs 36Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ABBV. ABBV’s edge is concentrated in momentum; JNJ keeps a meaningful quality 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 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
ABBV's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JNJ and ABBV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ABBV (AbbVie Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 28.8% against 20.9%.
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
ABBVABBV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ABBVABBV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ABBVABBV on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
JNJJNJ on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
JNJJNJ on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ABBV, analyst targets favor JNJ. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JNJ | ABBV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.4% | +0.9% | JNJ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.3% | +29.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 14 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | JNJ | ABBV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.25% | 6.81% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.980 | $4.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.140 | $6.560 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #240 | #196 |
ABBV grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.81% a year against JNJ's 5.25%. 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 ABBV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ABBV | 51 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | ABBVon balance | EPS growth -96.2% vs 4.2%; TTM ROE 19.7% vs -136.5%; gross margin 68.8% vs 71.5%; operating margin 25.7% vs 29.3% — ABBV takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 39 vs 36 |
| Technicals | ABBV | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs 7.9%; vs 200-day 6% vs 21.9% |
| Risk Resilience | JNJ | Risk Resilience 48 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | JNJ | Target upside 9.4% vs 0.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JNJ and ABBV 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 ABBV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ABBV lead: Reversed — JNJ led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ABBV now leads by 5.
- Today
- ABBV +5
- 51 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- ABBV +8
- 49 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- JNJ +2
- 57 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- JNJ +10
- 56 vs 46
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 30 when ABBV moved ahead of JNJ.
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, conflicted
Only JNJ
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ABBV
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
ABBV 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 -0.61%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.48%, 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.
- 1JNJ closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABBV's edge.
- 2JNJ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ABBV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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
ABBV leads on balance| Metric | JNJ | ABBV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.4% | 13.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -96.2% | 4.2% |
| Gross margin | 68.8% | 71.5% |
| Operating margin | 25.7% | 29.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.7% | -136.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | -11.93 |
Performance
ABBV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | JNJ | ABBV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.3% | 5.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.7% | 9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | 14.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 14.7% | 37.3% |
| Year to date | 25.3% | 25.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35% | 27.4% |
Technicals
ABBV has the stronger structure| Metric | JNJ | ABBV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.3 | 77.5 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 33.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | 7.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6% | 21.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.8% | 20.9% |
Risk
JNJ is the more resilient| Metric | JNJ | ABBV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.21 | -0.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.36 | 0.87 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.03 | 1.39 |
| Max drawdown | -11% | -16.5% |
| Current drawdown | -6.8% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.4% | 25.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JNJ or ABBV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ABBV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against JNJ's 51. The edge comes from momentum. JNJ 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 JNJ or ABBV the better buy right now?
ABBV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ABBV over JNJ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ABBV leads Momentum by 40 points; JNJ leads Quality by 11 points; JNJ leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JNJ or ABBV?
Analyst price targets imply +9.4% upside for JNJ and +0.9% for ABBV, so the Street currently favors JNJ. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ABBV. 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, JNJ or ABBV?
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, JNJ or ABBV?
ABBV 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, JNJ or ABBV?
ABBV on the Momentum factor, by 40 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, JNJ or ABBV?
JNJ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JNJ on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 JNJ more profitable than ABBV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 68.8% vs 71.5%; operating margin 25.7% vs 29.3%; ttm roe 19.7% vs -136.5%. JNJ leads on one measure and ABBV 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 ABBV's lead over JNJ getting stronger or weaker?
ABBV lead: Reversed — JNJ led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ABBV now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-30, when ABBV moved ahead of JNJ.
What would change the JNJ vs ABBV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JNJ closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABBV's edge; JNJ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ABBV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 JNJ and ABBV?
JNJ: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ABBV: 6 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 JNJ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ABBV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JNJ and ABBV 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.