JNJ vs XLV Stock Comparison
Johnson & Johnson vs State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLV leads
XLV leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support XLV, 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, 62 versus 59 as of Sep 2, 2026. XLV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while JNJ holds the stronger quality profile. XLV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. XLV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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.
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 50XLV +13
- Risk Resilience15%53 vs 61XLV +8
- Quality30%77 vs 71JNJ +6
- Momentum25%66 vs 65Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor XLV. XLV’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; JNJ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Value +1
No new signals fired.
XLV's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 value and risk resilience.
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): the counter-case, on quality, 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
XLVXLV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLVXLV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
XLVXLV on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 | +0% | — | 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
2 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 | Even | 59 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLV | Value 37 vs 50 |
| Technicals | JNJ | Price vs 50-day 6.2% vs 5.4%; vs 200-day 13.5% vs 10% |
| Risk Resilience | XLV | Risk Resilience 53 vs 61 |
| 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 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 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 XLV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1XLV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLV +3
- 59 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- XLV +4
- 59 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- XLV +5
- 60 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- JNJ +2
- 63 vs 61
The lead changed hands 14 times in this window, most recently on Aug 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.52%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.93%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.37%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.79%, 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.
- 1JNJ closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLV's edge.
- 2JNJ generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3XLV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.2% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.1% | — |
| Gross margin | 70.5% | — |
| Operating margin | 26.8% | — |
| Return on equity | 25.7% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | — |
Technicals
JNJ has the stronger structure| Metric | JNJ | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.4 | 55.9 |
| ADX (14) | 20.9 | 28.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.2% | 5.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.5% | 10% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.3% | 18.9% |
Risk
XLV is the more resilient| Metric | JNJ | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.22 | 0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.1 | 1.24 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.42 | 2.52 |
| Max drawdown | -11% | -10.8% |
| Current drawdown | -2.8% | -2.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.9% | 16% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -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 Sep 2, 2026, scoring 62 against JNJ's 59. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. 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 XLV the better buy right now?
XLV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 XLV over JNJ?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. XLV leads Value by 13 points; XLV leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; JNJ leads Quality by 6 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 +0% 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?
XLV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 XLV?
XLV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLV on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 14 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, 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 Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLV's edge; JNJ generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; XLV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 XLV?
JNJ: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. XLV: 3 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 XLV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JNJ and XLV 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.