JNJ vs DGRO Stock Comparison
Johnson & Johnson vs iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
JNJ leads
JNJ leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from DGRO.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support JNJ, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Johnson & Johnson
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JNJ over DGRO, 61 versus 58 as of Sep 5, 2026. JNJ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while DGRO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. JNJ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor JNJ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. JNJ lead: Reversed — DGRO led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JNJ now leads by 3.
Compare Johnson & Johnson and iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare JNJ and DGRO 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.
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 80DGRO +28
- Momentum25%78 vs 59JNJ +19
- Quality30%77 vs 63JNJ +14
- Value30%36 vs 42DGRO +6
1 of 4 evidence groups favor JNJ. JNJ’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; DGRO keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No new signals fired.
JNJ's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JNJ and DGRO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
DGRO (iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
JNJJNJ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
DGRODGRO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
JNJJNJ on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
DGRODGRO on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | JNJ | DGRO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.1% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +20% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor JNJ. 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 | 61 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | DGRO | Value 36 vs 42 |
| Technicals | JNJ | Price vs 50-day 5.4% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day 18.3% vs 8.3% |
| Risk Resilience | DGRO | Risk Resilience 52 vs 80 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JNJ and DGRO 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 1 of 4 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 leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 JNJ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3JNJ lead: Reversed — DGRO led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JNJ now leads by 3.
- Today
- JNJ +3
- 61 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- JNJ +1
- 59 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- DGRO +6
- 57 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- JNJ +1
- 62 vs 61
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when JNJ moved ahead of DGRO.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.92%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.8%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.40%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
DGRO is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.15%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.6%, 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.
- 1DGRO closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to JNJ's edge.
- 2DGRO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3JNJ's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
Split| Metric | JNJ | DGRO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.2% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.1% | — |
| Gross margin | 70.5% | — |
| Operating margin | 26.8% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.7% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | — |
Technicals
JNJ has the stronger structure| Metric | JNJ | DGRO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.3 | 47.6 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 20.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.4% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.3% | 8.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 6.8% |
Risk
DGRO is the more resilient| Metric | JNJ | DGRO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.21 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.25 | 1.52 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.7 | 2.34 |
| Max drawdown | -11% | -6.9% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -0.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 19% | 9.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JNJ or DGRO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JNJ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 against DGRO's 58. The edge comes from momentum and quality. DGRO is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 DGRO the better buy right now?
JNJ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 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 JNJ over DGRO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. DGRO leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; JNJ leads Momentum by 19 points; JNJ leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JNJ or DGRO?
Analyst price targets imply -0.1% upside for JNJ and not covered for DGRO. 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, JNJ or DGRO?
DGRO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DGRO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, JNJ or DGRO?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 DGRO?
JNJ on the Momentum factor, by 19 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 DGRO?
DGRO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DGRO on Risk Resilience, by 28 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is JNJ more profitable than DGRO?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is JNJ's lead over DGRO getting stronger or weaker?
JNJ lead: Reversed — DGRO led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JNJ now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when JNJ moved ahead of DGRO.
What would change the JNJ vs DGRO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DGRO closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to JNJ's edge; DGRO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; JNJ's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about JNJ and DGRO?
JNJ: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. DGRO: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 DGRO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.