PHR vs UNH Stock Comparison
Compare PHR and UNH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PHR and UNH?
UNH leads the current stock comparison as UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Phreesia, Inc. vs UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
UNH leads
UNH leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from PHR.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support UNH, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Phreesia, Inc.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNH over PHR, 53 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. UNH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while PHR holds the stronger quality profile. UNH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UNH today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. UNH lead: Reversed — PHR led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNH now leads by 9.
Compare Phreesia, Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 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 PHR and UNH 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.
- Momentum24 vs 52UNH +28
- Value42 vs 59UNH +17
- Quality59 vs 44PHR +15
- Risk Resilience49 vs 59UNH +10
5 of 6 evidence groups favor UNH. UNH’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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
UNH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PHR and UNH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UNH (UnitedHealth Group Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
PHR (Phreesia, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 49% against 19.9%.
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
UNHUNH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PHRPHR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UNHUNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
UNHUNH on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
UNHUNH on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
UNHUNH 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 | PHR | UNH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.3% | +23.7% | UNH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +58.9% | +33.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 18 | 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 UNH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UNH | 44 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | PHRon balance | EPS growth 127.1% vs -12.3%; TTM ROE 2.8% vs 14.4%; gross margin 65.8% vs 22.5% — PHR takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | UNH | Value 42 vs 59 |
| Technicals | UNH | Price vs 50-day -8.3% vs -7.6%; vs 200-day -16.4% vs 10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | UNH | Risk Resilience 49 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | UNH | Target upside 15.3% vs 23.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PHR and UNH 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 moderate at 9 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 UNH.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10UNH lead: Reversed — PHR led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNH now leads by 9.
- Today
- UNH +9
- 44 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- UNH +7
- 46 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- PHR +11
- 55 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- PHR +1
- 56 vs 55
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when UNH 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 / 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
2 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.27%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, 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.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.37%, 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.
- 1PHR closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNH's edge.
- 2PHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UNH'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 | PHR | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3% | 0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 127.1% | -12.3% |
| Gross margin | 65.8% | 22.5% |
| Operating margin | 0.7% | 4.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.8% | 14.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.26 | 0.7 |
Performance
UNH leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PHR | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -14.2% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -17% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.3% | -4.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.3% | 36.1% |
| Year to date | -39.9% | 17.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -62% | 23.1% |
Technicals
UNH has the stronger structure| Metric | PHR | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.3 | 52.7 |
| ADX (14) | 21.2 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.3% | -7.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.4% | 10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 49% | 19.9% |
Risk
UNH is the more resilient| Metric | PHR | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.39 | 0.38 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.51 | 0.46 |
| Max drawdown | -69.6% | -30% |
| Current drawdown | -61.7% | -11% |
| Annualized volatility | 58.7% | 34.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PHR or UNH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UNH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 53 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 PHR or UNH the better buy right now?
UNH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 UNH over PHR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UNH leads Momentum by 28 points; UNH leads Value by 17 points; PHR leads Quality by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PHR or UNH?
Analyst price targets imply +15.3% upside for PHR and +23.7% for UNH, so the Street currently favors UNH. 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, PHR or UNH?
UNH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, PHR or UNH?
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, PHR or UNH?
UNH 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, PHR or UNH?
UNH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UNH on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 PHR more profitable than UNH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 65.8% vs 22.5%; operating margin 0.7% vs 4.8%; ttm roe 2.8% vs 14.4%. Each name leads 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 UNH's lead over PHR getting stronger or weaker?
UNH lead: Reversed — PHR led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNH now leads by 9. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when UNH moved ahead of PHR.
What would change the PHR vs UNH 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 UNH's edge; PHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; UNH'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 PHR and UNH?
PHR: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. UNH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 PHR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UNH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PHR and UNH 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.