TMO vs TXG Stock Comparison
TMO currently leads TXG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 51. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while TXG has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between TMO and TXG?
TMO leads the current stock comparison as Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. vs 10x Genomics, Inc.
TMO leads
TMO leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TMO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TMO over TXG, 55 versus 51 as of Oct 31, 2026. TMO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while TXG holds the stronger quality profile. TMO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TMO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. TMO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and 10x Genomics, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare TMO and TXG 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 Resilience61 vs 38TMO +23
- Momentum80 vs 68TMO +12
- Quality51 vs 59TXG +8
- Value34 vs 34Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TMO. TMO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; TXG keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
TMO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TMO and TXG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TMO (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
TXG (10x Genomics, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 96.4% against 30%.
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
TMOTMO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TMOTMO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TMOTMO on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
TMOTMO on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
TMOTMO 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 | TMO | TXG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.9% | -8.5% | TMO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.3% | +137.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 10 | 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 TMO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TMO | 55 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | TMOon balance | revenue growth 1.2% vs 0.1%; TTM ROE 13.3% vs -9.3%; gross margin 41.4% vs 70%; operating margin 18% vs -14.3% — TMO takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 34 |
| Technicals | TXG | Price vs 50-day 7% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day 27.3% vs 108.9% |
| Risk Resilience | TMO | Risk Resilience 61 vs 38 |
| Analyst expectations | TMO | Target upside -3.9% vs -8.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TMO and TXG 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 TMO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30TMO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TMO +4
- 55 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- TMO +8
- 49 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- TMO +4
- 54 vs 50
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 7 when TMO moved ahead of TXG.
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TMO
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only TXG
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.80%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
TMO 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 -1.72%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -14.03%, 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.
- 1TXG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to TMO's edge.
- 2TXG's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3TMO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
TMO leads on balance| Metric | TMO | TXG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.2% | 0.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -0.6% | -40% |
| Gross margin | 41.4% | 70% |
| Operating margin | 18% | -14.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.3% | -9.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.76 | 0.1 |
Performance
TXG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TMO | TXG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 10.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.3% | -7.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 22.1% | 69.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 46.5% | 314% |
| Year to date | 21.5% | 412.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23% | 507.3% |
Technicals
TXG has the stronger structure| Metric | TMO | TXG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.6 | 57.5 |
| ADX (14) | 31.1 | 23.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 27.3% | 108.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30% | 96.4% |
Risk
TMO is the more resilient| Metric | TMO | TXG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.6 | 2.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | 2.79 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.26 | 5.07 |
| Max drawdown | -31.4% | -28.6% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -14.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.3% | 74.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TMO or TXG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TMO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 55 against TXG's 51. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. TXG 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 TMO or TXG the better buy right now?
TMO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TMO over TXG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TMO leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; TMO leads Momentum by 12 points; TXG leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TMO or TXG?
Analyst price targets imply -3.9% upside for TMO and -8.5% for TXG, so the Street currently favors TMO. 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, TMO or TXG?
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, TMO or TXG?
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, TMO or TXG?
TMO on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, TMO or TXG?
TMO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TMO on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 TMO more profitable than TXG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 41.4% vs 70%; operating margin 18% vs -14.3%; ttm roe 13.3% vs -9.3%. TMO leads on two measures and TXG 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 TMO's lead over TXG getting stronger or weaker?
TMO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-07, when TMO moved ahead of TXG.
What would change the TMO vs TXG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TXG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to TMO's edge; TXG's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; TMO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 TMO and TXG?
TMO: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. TXG: 4 bullish / 0 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 TMO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TXG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TMO and TXG 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.