STE vs TMDX Stock Comparison
Compare STE and TMDX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between STE and TMDX?
STE leads the current stock comparison as STERIS plc, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
STERIS plc vs TransMedics Group, Inc.
STE leads
STE leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support STE, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
STERIS plc
TransMedics Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors STE over TMDX, 46 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. STE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while TMDX holds the stronger momentum profile. STE also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor STE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. STE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare STERIS plc and TransMedics Group, 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 STE and TMDX 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.
- Risk Resilience72 vs 34STE +38
- Momentum15 vs 43TMDX +28
- Value48 vs 32STE +16
- Quality57 vs 64TMDX +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor STE. STE’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; TMDX 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 +1
No new signals fired.
STE's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — STE and TMDX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
STE (STERIS plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
TMDX (TransMedics Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 43.4% against 17.9%.
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
STESTE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TMDXTMDX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
STESTE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
TMDXTMDX on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
STESTE on Risk Resilience, by 38 points.
Analyst upside
STESTE 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 | STE | TMDX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.7% | +23.9% | STE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +2.2% | +75.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 7 | 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 STE. 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 45 |
| Fundamentals | TMDXon balance | revenue growth -6% vs 9.2%; EPS growth -8.5% vs 100%; TTM ROE 11.3% vs 33%; gross margin 44.4% vs 58.7%; operating margin 18.9% vs 12.2% — TMDX takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | STE | Value 48 vs 32 |
| Technicals | STE | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day -8.5% vs -18.4% |
| Risk Resilience | STE | Risk Resilience 72 vs 34 |
| Analyst expectations | STE | Target upside 28.7% vs 23.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of STE and TMDX 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 STE.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10STE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- STE +1
- 46 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- STE +3
- 50 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- STE +6
- 58 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- STE +16
- 58 vs 42
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 10 when TMDX moved ahead of STE.
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, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.02%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (28.17%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.83%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
STE 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 -0.8%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.36%, 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.
- 1TMDX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to STE's edge.
- 2TMDX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3STE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate STE's advantage entirely.
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
TMDX leads on balance| Metric | STE | TMDX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6% | 9.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.5% | 100% |
| Gross margin | 44.4% | 58.7% |
| Operating margin | 18.9% | 12.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.3% | 33% |
| Debt to equity | 0.28 | 1.67 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | STE | TMDX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.8% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.2% | -2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.1% | 13.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.1% | -34.1% |
| Year to date | -16.2% | -30.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -14.4% | -19.5% |
Technicals
STE has the stronger structure| Metric | STE | TMDX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 14.9 | 40 |
| ADX (14) | 16.6 | 17.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.5% | -18.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.9% | 43.4% |
Risk
STE is the more resilient| Metric | STE | TMDX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | 1.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.64 | -0.2 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.94 | -0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | -58.8% |
| Current drawdown | -20.9% | -43.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.6% | 57.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, STE or TMDX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, STE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against TMDX's 45. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. TMDX 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 STE or TMDX the better buy right now?
STE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor STE over TMDX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. STE leads Risk Resilience by 38 points; TMDX leads Momentum by 28 points; STE leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, STE or TMDX?
Analyst price targets imply +28.7% upside for STE and +23.9% for TMDX, so the Street currently favors STE. 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, STE or TMDX?
STE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. STE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, STE or TMDX?
TMDX 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, STE or TMDX?
TMDX 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, STE or TMDX?
STE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. STE on Risk Resilience, by 38 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 STE more profitable than TMDX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 44.4% vs 58.7%; operating margin 18.9% vs 12.2%; ttm roe 11.3% vs 33%. STE leads on one measure and TMDX on two measures, 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 STE's lead over TMDX getting stronger or weaker?
STE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-10, when TMDX moved ahead of STE.
What would change the STE vs TMDX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMDX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to STE's edge; TMDX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; STE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate STE's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about STE and TMDX?
STE: 2 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. TMDX: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 STE is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TMDX it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare STE and TMDX 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.