PH vs TT Stock Comparison
Compare PH and TT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PH and TT?
TT leads the current stock comparison as Trane Technologies plc, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Parker-Hannifin Corporation vs Trane Technologies plc
TT leads
TT leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from PH.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Parker-Hannifin Corporation
Trane Technologies plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TT over PH, 51 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. TT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. TT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. TT lead: Reversed — PH led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TT now leads by 8.
Compare Parker-Hannifin Corporation and Trane Technologies plc 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 PH and TT 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.
- Momentum9 vs 31TT +22
- Quality64 vs 72TT +8
- Risk Resilience63 vs 65Even
- Value40 vs 39Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TT. TT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 -6
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
TT's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PH and TT both carry a full feed there.
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
TTTT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TTTT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TTTT on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
TTTT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
TTTT 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 | PH | TT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19% | +23.2% | TT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.1% | +20.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TT | 43 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | TTon balance | revenue growth 4.9% vs 27.9%; EPS growth 20.9% vs 58.4%; TTM ROE 25.1% vs 34.5%; gross margin 37.7% vs 35.4%; operating margin 21.6% vs 17.9% — TT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 40 vs 39 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -4% vs -5%; vs 200-day -0.4% vs -1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 63 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | TT | Target upside 19% vs 23.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PH and TT 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 8 points.
- 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 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 TT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TT lead: Reversed — PH led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TT now leads by 8.
- Today
- TT +8
- 43 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- TT +6
- 44 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- PH +4
- 58 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- PH +2
- 58 vs 56
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when TT 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.52%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.73%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
TT 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.7%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.61%, 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.
- 1PH closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to TT's edge.
- 2PH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3TT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
TT leads on balance| Metric | PH | TT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.9% | 27.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 20.9% | 58.4% |
| Gross margin | 37.7% | 35.4% |
| Operating margin | 21.6% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.1% | 34.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.57 | 0.53 |
Performance
TT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | PH | TT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.6% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.6% | -8.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.7% | -2.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.7% | 1.7% |
| Year to date | 6.3% | 13% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.6% | 6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | PH | TT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 39.7 |
| ADX (14) | 22.3 | 21.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4% | -5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.4% | -1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.6% | 17.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PH | TT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.82 | 1.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.79 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.37 | 0.38 |
| Max drawdown | -19.5% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -13% | -12.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 28.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PH or TT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against PH's 43. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 PH or TT the better buy right now?
TT 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TT over PH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TT leads Momentum by 22 points; TT leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PH or TT?
Analyst price targets imply +19% upside for PH and +23.2% for TT, so the Street currently favors TT. 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, PH or TT?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, PH or TT?
TT 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, PH or TT?
TT on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, PH or TT?
TT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PH more profitable than TT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 37.7% vs 35.4%; operating margin 21.6% vs 17.9%; ttm roe 25.1% vs 34.5%. PH leads on two measures and TT 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 TT's lead over PH getting stronger or weaker?
TT lead: Reversed — PH led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TT now leads by 8. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when TT moved ahead of PH.
What would change the PH vs TT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PH closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to TT's edge; PH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; TT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 PH and TT?
PH: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. TT: 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 PH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PH and TT 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.