JNJ vs XLV Stock Comparison
XLV currently leads JNJ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum, while JNJ has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between JNJ and XLV?
XLV leads the current stock comparison as State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Johnson & Johnson vs State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLV leads
XLV leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support XLV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Johnson & Johnson
State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLV over JNJ, 60 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. XLV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while JNJ holds the stronger value profile. XLV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLV today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XLV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Johnson & Johnson and State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF 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 XLV 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 82XLV +38
- Risk Resilience48 vs 62XLV +14
- Value39 vs 31JNJ +8
- Quality71 vs 70Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor XLV. XLV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; JNJ keeps a meaningful value 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 +9
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
XLV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JNJ and XLV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLV (State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 28.8% against 18.4%.
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
XLVXLV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
JNJJNJ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
XLVXLV on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
XLVXLV on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 | XLV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.4% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +21.3% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLV | 51 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | JNJ | Value 39 vs 31 |
| Technicals | XLV | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs 5%; vs 200-day 6% vs 13.9% |
| Risk Resilience | XLV | Risk Resilience 48 vs 62 |
| 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 XLV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 XLV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20XLV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLV +9
- 51 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- XLV +10
- 49 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- XLV +3
- 57 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- XLV +5
- 56 vs 61
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 24 when XLV 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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only XLV
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 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 (0.0%)
- 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.
XLV 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.49%, AIQ +2 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 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLV's edge.
- 2JNJ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3XLV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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
Split| Metric | JNJ | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.4% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -96.2% | — |
| Gross margin | 68.8% | — |
| Operating margin | 25.7% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.7% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | — |
Performance
XLV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | JNJ | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.3% | 6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.7% | 5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | 12.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 14.7% | 20.9% |
| Year to date | 25.3% | 16.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35% | 26.3% |
Technicals
XLV has the stronger structure| Metric | JNJ | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.3 | 72.4 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 16 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | 5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6% | 13.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.8% | 18.4% |
Risk
XLV is the more resilient| Metric | JNJ | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.21 | 0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.36 | 1.24 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.03 | 2.48 |
| Max drawdown | -11% | -10.8% |
| Current drawdown | -6.8% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.4% | 16.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JNJ or XLV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XLV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against JNJ's 51. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. JNJ is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 XLV the better buy right now?
XLV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XLV over JNJ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XLV leads Momentum by 38 points; XLV leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; JNJ leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JNJ or XLV?
Analyst price targets imply +9.4% upside for JNJ and not covered for XLV. 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 XLV?
JNJ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JNJ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 XLV?
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 XLV?
XLV on the Momentum factor, by 38 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 XLV?
XLV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLV on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 XLV?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is XLV's lead over JNJ getting stronger or weaker?
XLV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-24, when XLV moved ahead of JNJ.
What would change the JNJ vs XLV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JNJ closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLV's edge; JNJ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; XLV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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 XLV?
JNJ: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. XLV: 6 bullish / 2 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 XLV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.