VTRS vs WAT Stock Comparison
Compare VTRS and WAT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between VTRS and WAT?
VTRS leads the current stock comparison as Viatris Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Viatris Inc. vs Waters Corporation
VTRS leads
VTRS leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from WAT.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support VTRS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Viatris Inc.
Waters Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTRS over WAT, 54 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. VTRS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while WAT holds the stronger quality profile. VTRS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VTRS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. VTRS lead: Reversed — WAT led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VTRS now leads by 7.
Compare Viatris Inc. and Waters Corporation 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 VTRS and WAT 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.
- Value73 vs 32VTRS +41
- Quality31 vs 50WAT +19
- Momentum52 vs 51Even
- Risk Resilience64 vs 65Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor VTRS. VTRS’s edge is concentrated in value; WAT keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
VTRS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VTRS and WAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VTRS (Viatris Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
WAT (Waters Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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
VTRSVTRS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WATWAT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
VTRSVTRS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
VTRSVTRS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
VTRSVTRS 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 | VTRS | WAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.2% | +2.5% | VTRS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +9.5% | +31.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VTRS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VTRS | 54 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | WAT | revenue growth 6.8% vs 29.8%; EPS growth -166.7% vs -59.8%; TTM ROE -2.8% vs 1.9%; gross margin 34.8% vs 50.8% |
| Valuation | VTRS | Value 73 vs 32 |
| Technicals | WAT | Price vs 50-day -1.6% vs 3.8%; vs 200-day 11.7% vs 11.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 64 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | VTRS | Target upside 27.2% vs 2.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of VTRS and WAT 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 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 VTRS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10VTRS lead: Reversed — WAT led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VTRS now leads by 7.
- Today
- VTRS +7
- 54 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- VTRS +10
- 59 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- WAT +5
- 48 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- VTRS +5
- 58 vs 53
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when VTRS moved ahead of WAT.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.32%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.96%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
VTRS 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 +0.79%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.67%, 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.
- 1WAT closes the Value gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTRS's edge.
- 2WAT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3VTRS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
WAT leads on balance| Metric | VTRS | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.8% | 29.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -166.7% | -59.8% |
| Gross margin | 34.8% | 50.8% |
| Operating margin | -0.6% | 8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -2.8% | 1.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.96 | 0.35 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | VTRS | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.2% | -2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.7% | -3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.9% | 10.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.3% | 35% |
| Year to date | 31.6% | 5.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 56.3% | 29.8% |
Technicals
WAT has the stronger structure| Metric | VTRS | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.7 | 47.3 |
| ADX (14) | 12.7 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.6% | 3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.7% | 11.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.5% | 24.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | VTRS | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.44 | 0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.29 | 1.24 |
| Max drawdown | -19.6% | -31.3% |
| Current drawdown | -8.3% | -4.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.2% | 36.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, VTRS or WAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VTRS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against WAT's 47. The edge comes from value. WAT 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 VTRS or WAT the better buy right now?
VTRS 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 VTRS over WAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VTRS leads Value by 41 points; WAT leads Quality by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, VTRS or WAT?
Analyst price targets imply +27.2% upside for VTRS and +2.5% for WAT, so the Street currently favors VTRS. 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, VTRS or WAT?
VTRS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VTRS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 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, VTRS or WAT?
WAT 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, VTRS or WAT?
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, VTRS or WAT?
VTRS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VTRS 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 VTRS more profitable than WAT?
WAT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 34.8% vs 50.8%; operating margin -0.6% vs 8%; ttm roe -2.8% vs 1.9%.
Is VTRS's lead over WAT getting stronger or weaker?
VTRS lead: Reversed — WAT led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VTRS now leads by 7. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when VTRS moved ahead of WAT.
What would change the VTRS vs WAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WAT closes the Value gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTRS's edge; WAT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; VTRS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 VTRS and WAT?
VTRS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WAT: 3 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 VTRS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WAT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare VTRS and WAT 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.