UNH vs PFE Stock Comparison
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated vs Pfizer Inc.
PFE leads
PFE leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors UNH on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support PFE, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
Pfizer Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PFE over UNH, 64 versus 49 as of Sep 2, 2026. PFE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while UNH holds the stronger risk resilience profile. PFE 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 PFE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. PFE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and Pfizer Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%43 vs 79PFE +36
- Value30%53 vs 69PFE +16
- Quality30%44 vs 54PFE +10
- Risk Resilience15%60 vs 52UNH +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor PFE. PFE’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; UNH keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
PFE's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UNH and PFE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PFE (Pfizer Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
UNH (UnitedHealth Group Incorporated): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
PFEPFE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
UNHUNH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFEPFE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
PFEPFE on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
UNHUNH on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
UNHUNH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PFE, analyst targets favor UNH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | UNH | PFE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.3% | -2.9% | UNH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +17.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 6 | 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 PFE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PFE | 49 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth -12.3% vs -109.2%; ROE 14.4% vs 4.9%; gross margin 22.5% vs 71.3%; operating margin 4.8% vs 25.1% |
| Valuation | PFE | Value 53 vs 69 |
| Technicals | PFE | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs 12.9%; vs 200-day 13.1% vs 9.3% |
| Risk Resilience | UNH | Risk Resilience 60 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | UNH | Target upside 17.3% vs -2.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of UNH and PFE 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 15 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)
- 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 PFE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1PFE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PFE +15
- 49 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- PFE +15
- 48 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- PFE +22
- 43 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- UNH +7
- 58 vs 51
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jul 15 when PFE moved ahead of UNH.
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 / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.70%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.59%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
PFE 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 up over the latest session (price +0.85%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.65%, 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.
- 1UNH closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFE's edge.
- 2UNH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3PFE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate PFE'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
Split| Metric | UNH | PFE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.3% | 4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -12.3% | -109.2% |
| Gross margin | 22.5% | 71.3% |
| Operating margin | 4.8% | 25.1% |
| Return on equity | 14.4% | 4.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.7 | 0.74 |
Technicals
PFE has the stronger structure| Metric | UNH | PFE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.9 | 74.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.3 | 44.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | 12.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.1% | 9.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.9% | 22.9% |
Risk
UNH is the more resilient| Metric | UNH | PFE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.43 | 0.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.55 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.94 | 0.97 |
| Max drawdown | -30% | -17.1% |
| Current drawdown | -9.2% | -0.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.6% | 23.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, UNH or PFE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PFE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 64 against UNH's 49. The edge comes from momentum and value. UNH is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 UNH or PFE the better buy right now?
PFE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 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 PFE over UNH?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PFE leads Momentum by 36 points; PFE leads Value by 16 points; PFE leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, UNH or PFE?
Analyst price targets imply +17.3% upside for UNH and -2.9% for PFE, so the Street currently favors UNH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PFE. 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, UNH or PFE?
PFE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, UNH or PFE?
UNH 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, UNH or PFE?
PFE on the Momentum factor, by 36 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, UNH or PFE?
UNH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UNH on Risk Resilience, by 8 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is UNH more profitable than PFE?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 22.5% vs 71.3%; operating margin 4.8% vs 25.1%; roe 14.4% vs 4.9%. UNH leads on one measure and PFE on two measures, 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 PFE's lead over UNH getting stronger or weaker?
PFE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-15, when PFE moved ahead of UNH.
What would change the UNH vs PFE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UNH closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFE's edge; UNH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; PFE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate PFE's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about UNH and PFE?
UNH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. PFE: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 UNH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PFE it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare UNH and PFE with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.