MOH vs PHR Stock Comparison
Compare MOH and PHR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MOH and PHR?
MOH leads the current stock comparison as Molina Healthcare, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Molina Healthcare, Inc. vs Phreesia, Inc.
MOH leads
MOH leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from PHR. Wall Street currently favors PHR on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MOH, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Molina Healthcare, Inc.
Phreesia, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MOH over PHR, 46 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. MOH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while PHR holds the stronger quality profile. MOH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PHR. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MOH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. MOH lead: Reversed — PHR led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MOH now leads by 2.
Compare Molina Healthcare, Inc. and Phreesia, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare MOH and PHR 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.
- Quality31 vs 59PHR +28
- Momentum52 vs 24MOH +28
- Value50 vs 42MOH +8
- Risk Resilience57 vs 49MOH +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MOH. MOH’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; PHR keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +13
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: MOH moved ahead of PHR in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MOH and PHR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MOH (Molina Healthcare, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
PHR (Phreesia, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 49% against 30%.
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
MOHMOH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PHRPHR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MOHMOH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
MOHMOH on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
MOHMOH on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
PHRPHR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MOH, analyst targets favor PHR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MOH | PHR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.7% | +15.3% | PHR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +79% | +58.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 7 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MOH. 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 | 46 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | PHR | EPS growth 3.4% vs 127.1%; TTM ROE -0.2% vs 2.8%; gross margin 34.6% vs 65.8%; operating margin 0.7% vs 0.7% |
| Valuation | MOH | Value 50 vs 42 |
| Technicals | MOH | Price vs 50-day -2.2% vs -8.3%; vs 200-day 12.4% vs -16.4% |
| Risk Resilience | MOH | Risk Resilience 57 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | PHR | Target upside -2.7% vs 15.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MOH and PHR 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)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 MOH.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MOH lead: Reversed — PHR led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MOH now leads by 2.
- Today
- MOH +2
- 46 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- PHR +2
- 44 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- PHR +9
- 46 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- PHR +3
- 53 vs 56
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when MOH moved ahead of PHR.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.16%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.69%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.19%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
PHR 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 +4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.38%, 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.
- 1PHR closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to MOH's edge.
- 2PHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MOH'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
PHR leads on balance| Metric | MOH | PHR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.7% | 3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.4% | 127.1% |
| Gross margin | 34.6% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 0.7% | 0.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -0.2% | 2.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.95 | 0.26 |
Performance
MOH leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MOH | PHR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -14.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.8% | -17% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.2% | 11.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.4% | -10.3% |
| Year to date | 15.4% | -39.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.1% | -62% |
Technicals
MOH has the stronger structure| Metric | MOH | PHR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.7 | 25.3 |
| ADX (14) | 11.7 | 21.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.2% | -8.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.4% | -16.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30% | 49% |
Risk
MOH is the more resilient| Metric | MOH | PHR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.1 | 0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | -1.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.43 | -1.51 |
| Max drawdown | -39.7% | -69.6% |
| Current drawdown | -17.5% | -61.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.2% | 58.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MOH or PHR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MOH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against PHR's 44. The edge comes from momentum and value. PHR 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 MOH or PHR the better buy right now?
MOH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 MOH over PHR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PHR leads Quality by 28 points; MOH leads Momentum by 28 points; MOH leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MOH or PHR?
Analyst price targets imply -2.7% upside for MOH and +15.3% for PHR, so the Street currently favors PHR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MOH. 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, MOH or PHR?
MOH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MOH 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, MOH or PHR?
PHR 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, MOH or PHR?
MOH on the Momentum factor, by 28 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, MOH or PHR?
MOH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MOH on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 MOH more profitable than PHR?
PHR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 34.6% vs 65.8%; operating margin 0.7% vs 0.7%; ttm roe -0.2% vs 2.8%.
Is MOH's lead over PHR getting stronger or weaker?
MOH lead: Reversed — PHR led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MOH now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when MOH moved ahead of PHR.
What would change the MOH vs PHR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PHR closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to MOH's edge; PHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MOH'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 MOH and PHR?
MOH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. PHR: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 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 MOH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PHR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MOH and PHR 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.