MTD vs NVST Stock Comparison
Compare MTD and NVST across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MTD and NVST?
NVST leads the current stock comparison as Envista Holdings Corp, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mettler-Toledo International Inc. vs Envista Holdings Corp
NVST leads
NVST leads by 27 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 19 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support NVST, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Mettler-Toledo International Inc.
Envista Holdings Corp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NVST over MTD, 54 versus 27 as of Sep 11, 2026. NVST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. NVST also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NVST today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. NVST lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 27 points over 30 sessions. NVST leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Mettler-Toledo International Inc. and Envista Holdings Corp 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 MTD and NVST 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.
- Value30 vs 62NVST +32
- Momentum8 vs 38NVST +30
- Quality27 vs 51NVST +24
- Risk Resilience55 vs 70NVST +15
5 of 6 evidence groups favor NVST. NVST’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
NVST's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTD and NVST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NVST (Envista Holdings Corp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
MTD (Mettler-Toledo International Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
NVSTNVST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MTDMTD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NVSTNVST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
NVSTNVST on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
NVSTNVST on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
NVSTNVST 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 | MTD | NVST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.1% | +16.2% | NVST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.8% | +37% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NVST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NVST | 27 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | MTDon balance | revenue growth 8.5% vs 3.5%; EPS growth 38.6% vs 37.5%; TTM ROE -12% vs 4.1%; gross margin 59.3% vs 55.5%; operating margin 28.7% vs 9.9% — MTD takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NVST | Value 30 vs 62 |
| Technicals | NVST | Price vs 50-day -5.1% vs -6%; vs 200-day -2.8% vs 1.8% |
| Risk Resilience | NVST | Risk Resilience 55 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | NVST | Target upside 13.1% vs 16.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MTD and NVST and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 27 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 NVST.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10NVST lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 27 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NVST +27
- 27 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- NVST +30
- 29 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- NVST +19
- 39 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- NVST +17
- 46 vs 63
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.38%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.03%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
NVST 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 +1.01%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.24%, 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.
- 1MTD closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to NVST's edge.
- 2MTD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3NVST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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
MTD leads on balance| Metric | MTD | NVST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.5% | 3.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 38.6% | 37.5% |
| Gross margin | 59.3% | 55.5% |
| Operating margin | 28.7% | 9.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -12% | 4.1% |
| Debt to equity | 164.7 | 0.52 |
Performance
NVST leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MTD | NVST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -5.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11% | -9.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13% | 7.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.2% | -2.8% |
| Year to date | -8.1% | 19.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.8% | 23.2% |
Technicals
NVST has the stronger structure| Metric | MTD | NVST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 17.2 | 38.8 |
| ADX (14) | 20.6 | 14.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.1% | -6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.8% | 1.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.8% | 22.2% |
Risk
NVST is the more resilient| Metric | MTD | NVST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.81 | 1.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.03 | 0.66 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.04 | 1.09 |
| Max drawdown | -31.9% | -26% |
| Current drawdown | -15% | -14.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.9% | 37.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MTD or NVST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NVST is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against MTD's 27. The edge comes from value and momentum. 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 MTD or NVST the better buy right now?
NVST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NVST over MTD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NVST leads Value by 32 points; NVST leads Momentum by 30 points; NVST leads Quality by 24 points. NVST leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MTD simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, MTD or NVST?
Analyst price targets imply +13.1% upside for MTD and +16.2% for NVST, so the Street currently favors NVST. 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, MTD or NVST?
NVST is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NVST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, MTD or NVST?
MTD 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, MTD or NVST?
NVST on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, MTD or NVST?
NVST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NVST on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 MTD more profitable than NVST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 59.3% vs 55.5%; operating margin 28.7% vs 9.9%; ttm roe -12% vs 4.1%. MTD leads on two measures and NVST 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 NVST's lead over MTD getting stronger or weaker?
NVST lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 27 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MTD vs NVST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MTD closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to NVST's edge; MTD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; NVST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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 MTD and NVST?
MTD: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. NVST: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 MTD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NVST it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MTD and NVST 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.