JNJ vs PFE Stock Comparison
Johnson & Johnson vs Pfizer Inc.
PFE leads
PFE leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JNJ on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PFE, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Johnson & Johnson
Pfizer Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PFE over JNJ, 64 versus 60 as of Sep 2, 2026. PFE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while JNJ holds the stronger quality profile. PFE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JNJ. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. PFE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Value30%37 vs 69PFE +32
- Quality30%77 vs 54JNJ +23
- Momentum25%70 vs 79PFE +9
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 52Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PFE. PFE’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; JNJ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-02, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-01.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
PFE's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JNJ and PFE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PFE (Pfizer Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
PFEPFE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
JNJJNJ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFEPFE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
PFEPFE on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
JNJJNJ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
JNJJNJ on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PFE, analyst targets favor JNJ. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JNJ | PFE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.1% | -2.9% | JNJ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +20% | +17.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 6 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PFE | 60 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | JNJon balance | revenue growth 5.2% vs 4%; EPS growth 6.1% vs -109.2%; TTM ROE 25.7% vs 4.9%; gross margin 70.5% vs 71.3%; operating margin 26.8% vs 25.1% — JNJ takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PFE | Value 37 vs 69 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 6% vs 12.9%; vs 200-day 15.6% vs 9.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | JNJ | Target upside -0.1% vs -2.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JNJ and PFE 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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)
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 PFE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 21 – Sep 2PFE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PFE +4
- 60 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- PFE +3
- 59 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- PFE +7
- 58 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- JNJ +11
- 63 vs 52
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 15 when PFE 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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.68%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.59%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
PFE 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 +1.48%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.65%, 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 Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFE's edge.
- 2JNJ generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PFE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate PFE'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
JNJ leads on balance| Metric | JNJ | PFE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.2% | 4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.1% | -109.2% |
| Gross margin | 70.5% | 71.3% |
| Operating margin | 26.8% | 25.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.7% | 4.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.74 |
Technicals
Split| Metric | JNJ | PFE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.5 | 74.5 |
| ADX (14) | 20.9 | 44.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6% | 12.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.6% | 9.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.3% | 22.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | JNJ | PFE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.22 | 0.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.14 | 0.55 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.51 | 0.97 |
| Max drawdown | -11% | -17.1% |
| Current drawdown | -0.8% | -0.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 19% | 23.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JNJ or PFE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PFE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 64 against JNJ's 60. The edge comes from value and 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 PFE the better buy right now?
PFE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PFE over JNJ?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PFE leads Value by 32 points; JNJ leads Quality by 23 points; PFE leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JNJ or PFE?
Analyst price targets imply -0.1% upside for JNJ and -2.9% for PFE, so the Street currently favors JNJ. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PFE. 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 PFE?
PFE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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 PFE?
JNJ 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 PFE?
PFE on the Momentum factor, by 9 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 PFE?
JNJ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JNJ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 PFE?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 70.5% vs 71.3%; operating margin 26.8% vs 25.1%; ttm roe 25.7% vs 4.9%. JNJ leads on two measures and PFE 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 PFE's lead over JNJ getting stronger or weaker?
PFE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-21 and 2026-09-02. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-15, when PFE moved ahead of JNJ.
What would change the JNJ vs PFE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JNJ closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFE's edge; JNJ generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; PFE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate PFE's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about JNJ and PFE?
JNJ: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PFE: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 PFE it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare JNJ and PFE with others
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.