UHS vs UNH Stock Comparison
Compare UHS and UNH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between UHS and UNH?
UHS leads the current stock comparison as Universal Health Services, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Universal Health Services, Inc. vs UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
UHS leads
UHS leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 24 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors UNH on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support UHS, and its lead is narrowing.
Universal Health Services, Inc.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UHS over UNH, 65 versus 53 as of Sep 11, 2026. UHS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. UHS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UNH. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UHS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. UHS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Universal Health Services, Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 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 UHS and UNH 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.
- Quality70 vs 44UHS +26
- Value73 vs 59UHS +14
- Momentum53 vs 52Even
- Risk Resilience60 vs 59Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor UHS. UHS’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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 -5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
UHS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UHS and UNH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UHS (Universal Health Services, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
UNH (UnitedHealth Group Incorporated): the counter-case, on technicals, 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
UHSUHS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UHSUHS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UHSUHS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
UNHUNH carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
UNHUNH 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 UNH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | UHS | UNH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.4% | +23.7% | UNH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +71.9% | +33.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 18 | 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 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 | 65 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | UHS | EPS growth 5.3% vs -12.3%; TTM ROE 20.7% vs 14.4%; gross margin 90.7% vs 22.5%; operating margin 11.4% vs 4.8% |
| Valuation | UHS | Value 73 vs 59 |
| Technicals | UNH | Price vs 50-day 6% vs -7.6%; vs 200-day -6.7% vs 10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | UNH | Target upside 15.4% vs 23.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of UHS and UNH 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10UHS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UHS +12
- 65 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- UHS +11
- 64 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- UHS +24
- 68 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- UHS +17
- 72 vs 55
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.35%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.27%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.22%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.37%, 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.
- 1UNH closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to UHS's edge.
- 2UNH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3UHS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate UHS'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
UHS leads on balance| Metric | UHS | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.2% | 0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.3% | -12.3% |
| Gross margin | 90.7% | 22.5% |
| Operating margin | 11.4% | 4.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.7% | 14.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.7 | 0.7 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | UHS | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.3% | -4.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.3% | 36.1% |
| Year to date | -20.8% | 17.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7% | 23.1% |
Technicals
UNH has the stronger structure| Metric | UHS | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.8 | 52.7 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6% | -7.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.7% | 10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.2% | 19.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | UHS | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.24 | 0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.2 | 0.38 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.25 | 0.46 |
| Max drawdown | -42.2% | -30% |
| Current drawdown | -29.3% | -11% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.3% | 34.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, UHS or UNH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UHS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against UNH's 53. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 UHS or UNH the better buy right now?
UHS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 UHS over UNH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UHS leads Quality by 26 points; UHS leads Value by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, UHS or UNH?
Analyst price targets imply +15.4% upside for UHS and +23.7% for UNH, so the Street currently favors UNH. 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, UHS or UNH?
UHS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UHS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, UHS or UNH?
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, UHS or UNH?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, UHS or UNH?
UNH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UNH 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 UHS more profitable than UNH?
UHS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 90.7% vs 22.5%; operating margin 11.4% vs 4.8%; ttm roe 20.7% vs 14.4%.
Is UHS's lead over UNH getting stronger or weaker?
UHS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the UHS vs UNH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UNH closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to UHS's edge; UNH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; UHS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate UHS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about UHS and UNH?
UHS: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. UNH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on UHS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UNH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare UHS and UNH 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.