TSLA vs JNJ Stock Comparison
JNJ currently leads TSLA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 42. The clearest difference is quality, while TSLA has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between TSLA and JNJ?
JNJ leads the current stock comparison as Johnson & Johnson, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Tesla, Inc. vs Johnson & Johnson
JNJ leads
JNJ leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 20 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TSLA on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JNJ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Tesla, Inc.
Johnson & Johnson
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JNJ over TSLA, 51 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. JNJ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while TSLA holds the stronger momentum profile. JNJ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TSLA. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JNJ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. JNJ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Tesla, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson 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 TSLA and JNJ 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.
- Quality41 vs 71JNJ +30
- Momentum60 vs 44TSLA +16
- Value24 vs 39JNJ +15
- Risk Resilience51 vs 48Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JNJ. JNJ’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; TSLA keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
JNJ's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSLA and JNJ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
TSLA (Tesla, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations.
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
JNJJNJ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TSLATSLA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JNJJNJ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
TSLATSLA on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
JNJJNJ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
TSLATSLA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors JNJ, analyst targets favor TSLA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TSLA | JNJ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14% | +9.4% | TSLA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +155% | +21.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 15 | 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 JNJ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JNJ | 42 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | JNJon balance | EPS growth 126.7% vs -96.2%; TTM ROE 4.6% vs 19.7%; gross margin 18.9% vs 68.8%; operating margin 4.2% vs 25.7% — JNJ takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JNJ | Value 24 vs 39 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 7% vs -2.8%; vs 200-day -3.5% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 51 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | TSLA | Target upside 14% vs 9.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TSLA and JNJ 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 moderate at 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 JNJ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JNJ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JNJ +9
- 42 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- JNJ +10
- 39 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- JNJ +20
- 37 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- JNJ +12
- 44 vs 56
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish
Only TSLA
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.24%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JNJ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.37%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
JNJ 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 +3.41%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.61%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1TSLA closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to JNJ's edge.
- 2TSLA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JNJ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate JNJ'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
JNJ leads on balance| Metric | TSLA | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 26.1% | 0.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 126.7% | -96.2% |
| Gross margin | 18.9% | 68.8% |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 25.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.6% | 19.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.11 | 0.58 |
Performance
JNJ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TSLA | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | 4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.1% | 1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.3% | 14.7% |
| Year to date | -16.9% | 25.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.8% | 35% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | TSLA | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.8 | 45.3 |
| ADX (14) | 12.8 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7% | -2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.5% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.9% | 28.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | TSLA | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.23 | -0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.22 | 1.36 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.33 | 2.03 |
| Max drawdown | -39.1% | -11% |
| Current drawdown | -23.7% | -6.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.2% | 20.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSLA or JNJ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JNJ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 51 against TSLA's 42. The edge comes from quality and value. TSLA 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 TSLA or JNJ the better buy right now?
JNJ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JNJ over TSLA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JNJ leads Quality by 30 points; TSLA leads Momentum by 16 points; JNJ leads Value by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSLA or JNJ?
Analyst price targets imply +14% upside for TSLA and +9.4% for JNJ, so the Street currently favors TSLA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors JNJ. 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, TSLA or JNJ?
JNJ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JNJ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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, TSLA or JNJ?
TSLA 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, TSLA or JNJ?
TSLA on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, TSLA or JNJ?
JNJ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JNJ 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 TSLA more profitable than JNJ?
JNJ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 18.9% vs 68.8%; operating margin 4.2% vs 25.7%; ttm roe 4.6% vs 19.7%.
Is JNJ's lead over TSLA getting stronger or weaker?
JNJ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the TSLA vs JNJ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TSLA closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to JNJ's edge; TSLA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; JNJ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate JNJ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about TSLA and JNJ?
TSLA: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. JNJ: 1 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 TSLA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JNJ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TSLA and JNJ 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.