STNE vs UHS Stock Comparison
UHS currently leads STNE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 52. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between STNE and UHS?
UHS leads the current stock comparison as Universal Health Services, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
StoneCo Ltd. vs Universal Health Services, Inc.
UHS leads
UHS leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from STNE. Wall Street currently favors STNE on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support UHS, and the lead recently changed hands.
StoneCo Ltd.
Universal Health Services, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UHS over STNE, 60 versus 52 as of Oct 31, 2026. UHS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. UHS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors STNE. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UHS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. UHS lead: Reversed — STNE led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UHS now leads by 8.
Compare StoneCo Ltd. and Universal Health Services, 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 STNE and UHS 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 Resilience32 vs 55UHS +23
- Momentum23 vs 35UHS +12
- Quality63 vs 70UHS +7
- Value75 vs 73Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor UHS. UHS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -22
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.61%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
UHS's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — STNE and UHS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UHS (Universal Health Services, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
STNE (StoneCo Ltd.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 91.3% against 29.8%.
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
UHSUHS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UHSUHS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
UHSUHS on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
UHSUHS on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
STNESTNE on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors UHS, analyst targets favor STNE. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | STNE | UHS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +79.4% | +7.5% | STNE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +17.3% | +66% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 8 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UHS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UHS | 52 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | UHSon balance | revenue growth -6.7% vs 3.2%; EPS growth -73.7% vs 5.3%; TTM ROE 29.7% vs 20.7%; gross margin 72.4% vs 90.7%; operating margin 50% vs 11.4% — UHS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 75 vs 73 |
| Technicals | UHS | Price vs 50-day -23.9% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -33.5% vs -2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | UHS | Risk Resilience 32 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | STNE | Target upside 79.4% vs 7.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of STNE and UHS 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 8 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 UHS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28UHS lead: Reversed — STNE led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UHS now leads by 8.
- Today
- UHS +8
- 52 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- UHS +11
- 60 vs 71
- 30 sessions ago
- STNE +2
- 65 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- UHS +13
- 56 vs 69
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 24 when UHS moved ahead of STNE.
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 / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only STNE
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
STNE is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -3.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.32%, AIQ -6 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.
- 1STNE closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to UHS's edge.
- 2STNE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UHS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
UHS leads on balance| Metric | STNE | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.7% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -73.7% | 5.3% |
| Gross margin | 72.4% | 90.7% |
| Operating margin | 50% | 11.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 29.7% | 20.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.81 | 0.7 |
Performance
UHS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | STNE | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -27.4% | -5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.4% | -1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -29.2% | 5.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -25.4% | 2.5% |
| Year to date | -38.3% | -21% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -57.1% | -16.8% |
Technicals
UHS has the stronger structure| Metric | STNE | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.5 | 46 |
| ADX (14) | 30 | 19.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -23.9% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -33.5% | -2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 91.3% | 29.8% |
Risk
UHS is the more resilient| Metric | STNE | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.46 | 0.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.13 | -0.7 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.28 | -0.91 |
| Max drawdown | -58% | -42.2% |
| Current drawdown | -58% | -29.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.3% | 32.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, STNE or UHS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UHS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against STNE's 52. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 STNE or UHS the better buy right now?
UHS 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UHS over STNE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UHS leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; UHS leads Momentum by 12 points; UHS leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, STNE or UHS?
Analyst price targets imply +79.4% upside for STNE and +7.5% for UHS, so the Street currently favors STNE. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors UHS. 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, STNE or UHS?
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, STNE or UHS?
UHS 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, STNE or UHS?
UHS 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, STNE or UHS?
UHS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UHS 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 STNE more profitable than UHS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 72.4% vs 90.7%; operating margin 50% vs 11.4%; ttm roe 29.7% vs 20.7%. STNE leads on two measures and UHS 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 UHS's lead over STNE getting stronger or weaker?
UHS lead: Reversed — STNE led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UHS now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-24, when UHS moved ahead of STNE.
What would change the STNE vs UHS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: STNE closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to UHS's edge; STNE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; UHS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 STNE and UHS?
STNE: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. UHS: 0 bullish / 3 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 STNE is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UHS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare STNE and UHS 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.