TECH vs TMO Stock Comparison
Compare TECH and TMO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TECH and TMO?
TECH leads the current stock comparison as Bio-Techne Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bio-Techne Corporation vs Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TECH leads
TECH leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors TMO on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TECH, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bio-Techne Corporation
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TECH over TMO, 56 versus 51 as of Sep 6, 2026. TECH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while TMO holds the stronger value profile. TECH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TMO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TECH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. TECH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bio-Techne Corporation and Thermo Fisher Scientific 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 TECH and TMO 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 Resilience15%89 vs 62TECH +27
- Quality30%66 vs 49TECH +17
- Value30%26 vs 39TMO +13
- Momentum25%62 vs 60Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TECH. TECH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; TMO keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
TECH's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TECH and TMO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TECH (Bio-Techne Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
TMO (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 23.9% against 3.3%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
TECHTECH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
TMOTMO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TMOTMO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
TECHTECH on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
TMOTMO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TECH, analyst targets favor TMO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TECH | TMO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -11.5% | -2.9% | TMO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +37.4% | +43.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TECH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TECH | 56 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | TECHon balance | revenue growth 3.1% vs 9%; EPS growth 6.1% vs 5.4%; TTM ROE 8.9% vs 13.4%; gross margin 65.8% vs 40.4%; operating margin 20.7% vs 17.7% — TECH takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TMO | Value 26 vs 39 |
| Technicals | TMO | Price vs 50-day 0.8% vs 7.5%; vs 200-day 18.7% vs 14.5% |
| Risk Resilience | TECH | Risk Resilience 89 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | TMO | Target upside -11.5% vs -2.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TECH and TMO 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 TECH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5TECH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TECH +5
- 56 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- TECH +5
- 56 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- TECH +6
- 59 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 7 when TECH moved ahead of TMO.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.78%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.47%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
TECH 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 -0.03%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.75%, 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.
- 1TMO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to TECH's edge.
- 2TMO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3TECH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
TECH leads on balance| Metric | TECH | TMO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.1% | 9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.1% | 5.4% |
| Gross margin | 65.8% | 40.4% |
| Operating margin | 20.7% | 17.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.9% | 13.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 0.81 |
Performance
TECH leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TECH | TMO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | 3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 39.3% | 29.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 34.4% | 22.3% |
| Year to date | 23.2% | 5.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35.8% | 26.7% |
Technicals
TMO has the stronger structure| Metric | TECH | TMO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.3 | 63.3 |
| ADX (14) | 52.9 | 34.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.8% | 7.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.7% | 14.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 3.3% | 23.9% |
Risk
TECH is the more resilient| Metric | TECH | TMO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.13 | 1.28 |
| Max drawdown | -39.3% | -31.4% |
| Current drawdown | -0.1% | -4% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.7% | 30.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TECH or TMO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TECH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 56 against TMO's 51. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. TMO is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 TECH or TMO the better buy right now?
TECH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TECH over TMO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TECH leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; TECH leads Quality by 17 points; TMO leads Value by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TECH or TMO?
Analyst price targets imply -11.5% upside for TECH and -2.9% for TMO, so the Street currently favors TMO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TECH. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, TECH or TMO?
TMO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TMO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, TECH or TMO?
TMO 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, TECH or TMO?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, TECH or TMO?
TECH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TECH on Risk Resilience, by 27 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is TECH more profitable than TMO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 65.8% vs 40.4%; operating margin 20.7% vs 17.7%; ttm roe 8.9% vs 13.4%. TECH leads on two measures and TMO 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 TECH's lead over TMO getting stronger or weaker?
TECH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-07, when TECH moved ahead of TMO.
What would change the TECH vs TMO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to TECH's edge; TMO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; TECH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about TECH and TMO?
TECH: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TMO: 3 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 TECH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TMO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TECH and TMO with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.