KMB vs UNH Stock Comparison
UNH currently leads KMB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 58. The clearest difference is value, while KMB has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between KMB and UNH?
UNH leads the current stock comparison as UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Kimberly-Clark Corporation vs UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
UNH leads
UNH leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support UNH, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNH over KMB, 60 versus 58 as of Oct 31, 2026. UNH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while KMB holds the stronger quality profile. UNH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UNH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. UNH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Kimberly-Clark Corporation and UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 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 KMB and UNH 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.
- Quality57 vs 46KMB +11
- Value47 vs 58UNH +11
- Risk Resilience44 vs 51UNH +7
- Momentum82 vs 84Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor UNH. UNH’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; KMB keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
UNH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KMB and UNH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UNH (UnitedHealth Group Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
KMB (Kimberly-Clark Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals.
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
UNHUNH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UNHUNH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UNHUNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
UNHUNH on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
UNHUNH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | KMB | UNH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.2% | +16.3% | UNH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +13.8% | +31.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 19 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | KMB | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 3.32% | 12.57% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.280 | $4.830 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.040 | $8.730 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #302 | #58 |
UNH grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.57% a year against KMB's 3.32%. 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UNH. 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 | 58 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | KMBon balance | revenue growth 0.6% vs 0.6%; EPS growth -48% vs -24.6%; TTM ROE 122.6% vs 16.1%; gross margin 36.7% vs 22.8%; operating margin 12.4% vs 5.3% — KMB takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | UNH | Value 47 vs 58 |
| Technicals | UNH | Price vs 50-day 5% vs 4.5%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs 12.5% |
| Risk Resilience | UNH | Risk Resilience 44 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | UNH | Target upside 7.2% vs 16.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KMB and UNH 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 UNH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28UNH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UNH +2
- 58 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- UNH +4
- 59 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- UNH +5
- 48 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- KMB +5
- 55 vs 50
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 29 when KMB moved ahead of UNH.
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only KMB
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.07%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only UNH
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.54%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
UNH 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 -1.89%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.96%, 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.
- 1KMB closes the Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNH's edge.
- 2KMB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UNH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate UNH'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
KMB leads on balance| Metric | KMB | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -48% | -24.6% |
| Gross margin | 36.7% | 22.8% |
| Operating margin | 12.4% | 5.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 122.6% | 16.1% |
| Debt to equity | 3.72 | 0.71 |
Performance
KMB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | KMB | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | -2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.3% | 10.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.6% | -3.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.8% | 9.8% |
| Year to date | 7.4% | 23.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.9% | 12.3% |
Technicals
UNH has the stronger structure| Metric | KMB | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.7 | 70.1 |
| ADX (14) | 33.4 | 34.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | 4.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | 12.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.4% | 28.6% |
Risk
UNH is the more resilient| Metric | KMB | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.03 | 0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.37 | 0.36 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.43 | 0.44 |
| Max drawdown | -22.9% | -29.6% |
| Current drawdown | -10.2% | -6.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.7% | 34.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KMB or UNH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UNH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against KMB's 58. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. KMB 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 KMB or UNH the better buy right now?
UNH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UNH over KMB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KMB leads Quality by 11 points; UNH leads Value by 11 points; UNH leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, KMB or UNH?
Analyst price targets imply +7.2% upside for KMB and +16.3% for UNH, so the Street currently favors UNH. 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, KMB or UNH?
UNH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, KMB or UNH?
UNH 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, KMB or UNH?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, KMB or UNH?
UNH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UNH on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 KMB more profitable than UNH?
KMB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 36.7% vs 22.8%; operating margin 12.4% vs 5.3%; ttm roe 122.6% vs 16.1%.
Is UNH's lead over KMB getting stronger or weaker?
UNH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-29, when KMB moved ahead of UNH.
What would change the KMB vs UNH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: KMB closes the Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNH's edge; KMB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; UNH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate UNH's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about KMB and UNH?
KMB: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. UNH: 4 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 KMB is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UNH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare KMB and UNH 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.