TMDX vs WAT Stock Comparison
Compare TMDX and WAT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TMDX and WAT?
WAT leads the current stock comparison as Waters Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
TransMedics Group, Inc. vs Waters Corporation
WAT leads
WAT leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TMDX on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support WAT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
TransMedics Group, Inc.
Waters Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WAT over TMDX, 47 versus 42 as of Sep 12, 2026. WAT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while TMDX holds the stronger quality profile. WAT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TMDX. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WAT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. WAT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare TransMedics Group, Inc. 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 TMDX 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.
- Risk Resilience33 vs 65WAT +32
- Momentum34 vs 52WAT +18
- Quality64 vs 50TMDX +14
- Value32 vs 32Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor WAT. WAT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; TMDX keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-11, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-10.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
WAT's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TMDX and WAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WAT (Waters Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
TMDX (TransMedics Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 43.3% against 24.9%.
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
WATWAT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TMDXTMDX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WATWAT on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
WATWAT on Risk Resilience, by 32 points.
Analyst upside
TMDXTMDX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WAT, analyst targets favor TMDX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TMDX | WAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.9% | +2.5% | TMDX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +75.6% | +31.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 11 | 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 WAT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WAT | 42 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | TMDXon balance | revenue growth 9.2% vs 29.8%; EPS growth 100% vs -59.8%; TTM ROE 33% vs 1.9%; gross margin 58.7% vs 50.8%; operating margin 12.2% vs 8% — TMDX takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 32 vs 32 |
| Technicals | WAT | Price vs 50-day 0.7% vs 3.6%; vs 200-day -20.9% vs 13% |
| Risk Resilience | WAT | Risk Resilience 33 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | TMDX | Target upside 23.9% vs 2.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TMDX 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 WAT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 11WAT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WAT +5
- 42 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- WAT +2
- 47 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- WAT +1
- 51 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- WAT +8
- 42 vs 50
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Aug 4 when WAT moved ahead of TMDX.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (27.42%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.23%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.11%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
WAT 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 -3.36%, AIQ -3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.67%, 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.
- 1TMDX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to WAT's edge.
- 2TMDX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WAT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
TMDX leads on balance| Metric | TMDX | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.2% | 29.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 100% | -59.8% |
| Gross margin | 58.7% | 50.8% |
| Operating margin | 12.2% | 8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33% | 1.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.67 | 0.35 |
Performance
WAT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TMDX | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.5% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.3% | -1.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.7% | 13.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -32.3% | 39.6% |
| Year to date | -32.4% | 7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24.1% | 35.9% |
Technicals
WAT has the stronger structure| Metric | TMDX | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.6 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 17.8 | 22.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.7% | 3.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -20.9% | 13% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.3% | 24.9% |
Risk
WAT is the more resilient| Metric | TMDX | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.2 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.33 | 1.4 |
| Max drawdown | -58.8% | -31.3% |
| Current drawdown | -45.4% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 57.6% | 36.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TMDX or WAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WAT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 12, 2026, scoring 47 against TMDX's 42. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. TMDX 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 TMDX or WAT the better buy right now?
WAT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 12, 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 WAT over TMDX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WAT leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; WAT leads Momentum by 18 points; TMDX leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TMDX or WAT?
Analyst price targets imply +23.9% upside for TMDX and +2.5% for WAT, so the Street currently favors TMDX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WAT. 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, TMDX or WAT?
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, TMDX or WAT?
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, TMDX or WAT?
WAT on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, TMDX or WAT?
WAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WAT on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 TMDX more profitable than WAT?
TMDX leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 58.7% vs 50.8%; operating margin 12.2% vs 8%; ttm roe 33% vs 1.9%.
Is WAT's lead over TMDX getting stronger or weaker?
WAT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-11. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-04, when WAT moved ahead of TMDX.
What would change the TMDX vs WAT 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 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to WAT's edge; TMDX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WAT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 TMDX and WAT?
TMDX: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 TMDX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WAT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TMDX 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.