MMM vs PH Stock Comparison
MMM currently leads PH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum, while PH has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between MMM and PH?
MMM leads the current stock comparison as 3M Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
3M Company vs Parker-Hannifin Corporation
MMM leads
MMM leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from PH. Wall Street currently favors PH on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MMM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
3M Company
Parker-Hannifin Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MMM over PH, 62 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. MMM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while PH holds the stronger quality profile. MMM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PH. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MMM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. MMM lead: Reversed — PH led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MMM now leads by 11.
Compare 3M Company and Parker-Hannifin Corporation 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 MMM and PH 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.
- Momentum75 vs 38MMM +37
- Value56 vs 40MMM +16
- Quality58 vs 64PH +6
- Risk Resilience61 vs 66PH +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MMM. MMM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; PH keeps a meaningful quality 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 +37
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -12
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
The lead changed hands: MMM moved ahead of PH in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MMM and PH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MMM (3M Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
PH (Parker-Hannifin Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, 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
MMMMMM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MMMMMM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MMMMMM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
MMMMMM on the Momentum factor, by 37 points.
Lower downside
PHPH on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
PHPH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MMM, analyst targets favor PH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MMM | PH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.5% | +17.8% | PH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +39.6% | +36.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 9 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MMM | PH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -9.90% | 14.84% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.916 | $3.520 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.920 | $7.030 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #40 |
PH grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 14.84% a year against MMM's -9.90%. PH never reduced its regular dividend in the window; MMM did in 2 years.
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 MMM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MMM | 62 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | MMMon balance | revenue growth 7.8% vs 4.9%; EPS growth 45.5% vs 20.9%; TTM ROE 77.1% vs 25.1%; gross margin 39.4% vs 37.7%; operating margin 19% vs 21.6% — MMM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MMM | Value 56 vs 40 |
| Technicals | MMM | Price vs 50-day 3% vs -2%; vs 200-day 6.6% vs -0.5% |
| Risk Resilience | PH | Risk Resilience 61 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | PH | Target upside 5.5% vs 17.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MMM and PH 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 moderate at 11 points.
- 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 MMM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MMM lead: Reversed — PH led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MMM now leads by 11.
- Today
- MMM +11
- 62 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- MMM +2
- 54 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- PH +1
- 58 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- PH +4
- 57 vs 61
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when MMM moved ahead of PH.
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 / 0 bearish
Only MMM
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only PH
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
PH 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.97%, AIQ +9 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.44%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1PH closes the Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to MMM's edge.
- 2PH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3MMM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
MMM leads on balance| Metric | MMM | PH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.8% | 4.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.5% | 20.9% |
| Gross margin | 39.4% | 37.7% |
| Operating margin | 19% | 21.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 77.1% | 25.1% |
| Debt to equity | 4.25 | 0.57 |
Performance
MMM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MMM | PH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.3% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.2% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.4% | -2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.4% | -2.9% |
| Year to date | 7% | 7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.2% | 30.1% |
Technicals
MMM has the stronger structure| Metric | MMM | PH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.6 | 45.7 |
| ADX (14) | 28.1 | 16 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.6% | -0.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 18.6% |
Risk
PH is the more resilient| Metric | MMM | PH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.78 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | 0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.74 | 1.62 |
| Max drawdown | -19.1% | -19.5% |
| Current drawdown | -6.8% | -12% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.9% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MMM or PH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MMM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against PH's 51. The edge comes from momentum and value. PH 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 MMM or PH the better buy right now?
MMM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MMM over PH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MMM leads Momentum by 37 points; MMM leads Value by 16 points; PH leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MMM or PH?
Analyst price targets imply +5.5% upside for MMM and +17.8% for PH, so the Street currently favors PH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MMM. 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, MMM or PH?
MMM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MMM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, MMM or PH?
MMM 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, MMM or PH?
MMM on the Momentum factor, by 37 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, MMM or PH?
PH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PH on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 MMM more profitable than PH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 39.4% vs 37.7%; operating margin 19% vs 21.6%; ttm roe 77.1% vs 25.1%. MMM leads on two measures and PH 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 MMM's lead over PH getting stronger or weaker?
MMM lead: Reversed — PH led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MMM now leads by 11. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when MMM moved ahead of PH.
What would change the MMM vs PH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PH closes the Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to MMM's edge; PH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; MMM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 MMM and PH?
MMM: 3 bullish / 0 bearish. PH: 1 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 MMM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MMM and PH 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.