TFX vs WAT Stock Comparison
Compare TFX and WAT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TFX and WAT?
TFX leads the current stock comparison as Teleflex Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Teleflex Incorporated vs Waters Corporation
TFX leads
TFX leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support TFX, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Teleflex Incorporated
Waters Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TFX over WAT, 50 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. TFX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while WAT holds the stronger quality profile. TFX also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TFX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. TFX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Teleflex Incorporated and Waters Corporation 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 TFX and WAT 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.
- Value62 vs 32TFX +30
- Quality39 vs 50WAT +11
- Momentum41 vs 51WAT +10
- Risk Resilience64 vs 65Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor TFX. TFX’s edge is concentrated in value; WAT 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -19
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
TFX's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TFX and WAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TFX (Teleflex Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
WAT (Waters Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, fundamentals.
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
TFXTFX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TFXTFX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TFXTFX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
WATWAT on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
WATWAT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
TFXTFX 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 | TFX | WAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.2% | +2.5% | TFX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.6% | +31.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TFX. 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 | 50 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | WATon balance | revenue growth 4% vs 29.8%; EPS growth 13.7% vs -59.8%; TTM ROE -31.8% vs 1.9%; gross margin 53.8% vs 50.8%; operating margin 3.3% vs 8% — WAT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TFX | Value 62 vs 32 |
| Technicals | WAT | Price vs 50-day -3.4% vs 3.8%; vs 200-day 6.8% vs 11.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 64 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | TFX | Target upside 16.2% vs 2.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TFX and WAT 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 TFX.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TFX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TFX +3
- 50 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- TFX +9
- 58 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- TFX +3
- 56 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- TFX +4
- 57 vs 53
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when TFX moved ahead of WAT.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.73%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.96%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
TFX 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.77%, AIQ -5 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.67%, 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.
- 1WAT closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to TFX's edge.
- 2WAT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3TFX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
WAT leads on balance| Metric | TFX | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4% | 29.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 13.7% | -59.8% |
| Gross margin | 53.8% | 50.8% |
| Operating margin | 3.3% | 8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -31.8% | 1.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.99 | 0.35 |
Performance
WAT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TFX | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | -3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.1% | 10.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 18.1% | 35% |
| Year to date | 8.2% | 5.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.6% | 29.8% |
Technicals
WAT has the stronger structure| Metric | TFX | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.9 | 47.3 |
| ADX (14) | 12.1 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.4% | 3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.8% | 11.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.4% | 24.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | TFX | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.76 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | 0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.19 | 1.24 |
| Max drawdown | -24.6% | -31.3% |
| Current drawdown | -7.1% | -4.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.4% | 36.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TFX or WAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TFX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against WAT's 47. The edge comes from value. WAT 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 TFX or WAT the better buy right now?
TFX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TFX over WAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TFX leads Value by 30 points; WAT leads Quality by 11 points; WAT leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TFX or WAT?
Analyst price targets imply +16.2% upside for TFX and +2.5% for WAT, so the Street currently favors TFX. 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, TFX or WAT?
TFX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TFX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, TFX or WAT?
TFX 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, TFX or WAT?
WAT on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, TFX or WAT?
WAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WAT 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 TFX more profitable than WAT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 53.8% vs 50.8%; operating margin 3.3% vs 8%; ttm roe -31.8% vs 1.9%. TFX leads on one measure and WAT 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 TFX's lead over WAT getting stronger or weaker?
TFX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when TFX moved ahead of WAT.
What would change the TFX vs WAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WAT closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to TFX's edge; WAT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; TFX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 TFX and WAT?
TFX: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. WAT: 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 TFX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WAT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TFX and WAT 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.