BHC vs NWL Stock Comparison
Compare BHC and NWL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BHC and NWL?
BHC leads the current stock comparison as Bausch Health Companies Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bausch Health Companies Inc. vs Newell Brands Inc.
BHC leads
BHC leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BHC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bausch Health Companies Inc.
Newell Brands Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BHC over NWL, 68 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. BHC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while NWL holds the stronger momentum profile. BHC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BHC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. BHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 22 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bausch Health Companies Inc. and Newell Brands 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 BHC and NWL 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.
- Quality100 vs 16BHC +84
- Momentum48 vs 63NWL +15
- Risk Resilience23 vs 36NWL +13
- Value75 vs 68BHC +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BHC. BHC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; NWL keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
BHC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BHC and NWL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BHC (Bausch Health Companies Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
NWL (Newell Brands Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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
BHCBHC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BHCBHC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BHCBHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
NWLNWL on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
NWLNWL on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
BHCBHC 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 | BHC | NWL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +36.5% | +2.2% | BHC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +125.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BHC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BHC | 68 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | BHCon balance | revenue growth 13% vs 28.7%; EPS growth 117.7% vs 4.2%; TTM ROE 88.8% vs -8.9%; gross margin 71.8% vs 35.5%; operating margin 25.4% vs 8.1% — BHC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BHC | Value 75 vs 68 |
| Technicals | NWL | Price vs 50-day 1.5% vs 2.2%; vs 200-day 3.6% vs 29.8% |
| Risk Resilience | NWL | Risk Resilience 23 vs 36 |
| Analyst expectations | BHC | Target upside 36.5% vs 2.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BHC and NWL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 BHC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BHC +22
- 68 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- BHC +25
- 71 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- BHC +24
- 74 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- BHC +16
- 66 vs 50
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.40%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.25%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (26.60%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
BHC 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 -3.46%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.34%, 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.
- 1NWL closes the Quality gap — currently 84 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge.
- 2NWL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
BHC leads on balance| Metric | BHC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13% | 28.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 117.7% | 4.2% |
| Gross margin | 71.8% | 35.5% |
| Operating margin | 25.4% | 8.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 88.8% | -8.9% |
| Debt to equity | -11.73 | 2.26 |
Performance
NWL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BHC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.1% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.3% | -4.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.9% | 31% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.8% | 36.8% |
| Year to date | -12.7% | 57.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17.2% | -7.3% |
Technicals
NWL has the stronger structure| Metric | BHC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.5 | 51.9 |
| ADX (14) | 29.1 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.5% | 2.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.6% | 29.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.2% | 51.6% |
Risk
NWL is the more resilient| Metric | BHC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.03 | 1.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.11 | 0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.2 | 0.19 |
| Max drawdown | -43.9% | -50% |
| Current drawdown | -23.2% | -7.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 56.4% | 59.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.8% | -4.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BHC or NWL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BHC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 68 against NWL's 46. The edge comes from quality and value. NWL is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 BHC or NWL the better buy right now?
BHC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BHC over NWL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BHC leads Quality by 84 points; NWL leads Momentum by 15 points; NWL leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BHC or NWL?
Analyst price targets imply +36.5% upside for BHC and +2.2% for NWL, so the Street currently favors BHC. 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, BHC or NWL?
BHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, BHC or NWL?
BHC 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, BHC or NWL?
NWL on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, BHC or NWL?
NWL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NWL on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 BHC more profitable than NWL?
BHC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 71.8% vs 35.5%; operating margin 25.4% vs 8.1%; ttm roe 88.8% vs -8.9%.
Is BHC's lead over NWL getting stronger or weaker?
BHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 22 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 BHC vs NWL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NWL closes the Quality gap — currently 84 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge; NWL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 BHC and NWL?
BHC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NWL: 3 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 BHC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NWL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BHC and NWL 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.