VTRS vs XRAY Stock Comparison
VTRS currently leads XRAY in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between VTRS and XRAY?
VTRS leads the current stock comparison as Viatris Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Viatris Inc. vs DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc.
VTRS leads
VTRS leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors XRAY on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support VTRS, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Viatris Inc.
DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTRS over XRAY, 59 versus 51 as of Oct 31, 2026. VTRS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. VTRS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors XRAY. 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Viatris Inc. and DENTSPLY SIRONA 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 VTRS and XRAY 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.
- Momentum75 vs 53VTRS +22
- Risk Resilience61 vs 51VTRS +10
- Quality31 vs 27VTRS +4
- Value73 vs 73Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor VTRS. VTRS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 6 active signals are unchanged.
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 5 active signals are unchanged.
VTRS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VTRS and XRAY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VTRS (Viatris Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
XRAY (DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 39.4% against 27.7%.
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
VTRSVTRS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
XRAYXRAY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
VTRSVTRS on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
VTRSVTRS on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
XRAYXRAY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors VTRS, analyst targets favor XRAY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | VTRS | XRAY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.5% | +28.8% | XRAY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.1% | +65.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 7 | 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 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 | 59 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 6.8% vs 2%; EPS growth -166.7% vs 4.6%; TTM ROE -2.8% vs -39.8%; gross margin 34.8% vs 49.5% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 73 vs 73 |
| Technicals | VTRS | Price vs 50-day 9.8% vs -2.3%; vs 200-day 18.5% vs -16.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VTRS | Risk Resilience 61 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | XRAY | Target upside 16.5% vs 28.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of VTRS and XRAY 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.
- 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28VTRS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTRS +8
- 59 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- VTRS +5
- 57 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- VTRS +14
- 58 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- VTRS +16
- 59 vs 43
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 7 when VTRS moved ahead of XRAY.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only VTRS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.46%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only XRAY
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (16.46%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.67%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
XRAY 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 -0.86%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.83%, 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.
- 1XRAY closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTRS's edge.
- 2XRAY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VTRS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate VTRS'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 | VTRS | XRAY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.8% | 2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -166.7% | 4.6% |
| Gross margin | 34.8% | 49.5% |
| Operating margin | -0.6% | 11.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -2.8% | -39.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.96 | 1.71 |
Performance
VTRS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | VTRS | XRAY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | 4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.9% | 6.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.7% | -31.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.4% | -17.8% |
| Year to date | 49.7% | -17.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 81.4% | -28% |
Technicals
VTRS has the stronger structure| Metric | VTRS | XRAY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 65.6 | 62.9 |
| ADX (14) | 20.9 | 27.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9.8% | -2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.5% | -16.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.7% | 39.4% |
Risk
VTRS is the more resilient| Metric | VTRS | XRAY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.69 | 1.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.9 | -0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.08 | -0.84 |
| Max drawdown | -19.6% | -42.6% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -35.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.4% | 47.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, VTRS or XRAY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VTRS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against XRAY's 51. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 XRAY the better buy right now?
VTRS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 XRAY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VTRS leads Momentum by 22 points; VTRS leads Risk Resilience by 10 points; VTRS leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, VTRS or XRAY?
Analyst price targets imply +16.5% upside for VTRS and +28.8% for XRAY, so the Street currently favors XRAY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors VTRS. 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, VTRS or XRAY?
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, VTRS or XRAY?
XRAY 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 XRAY?
VTRS on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, VTRS or XRAY?
VTRS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VTRS on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 VTRS more profitable than XRAY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 34.8% vs 49.5%; operating margin -0.6% vs 11.7%; ttm roe -2.8% vs -39.8%. Each name leads 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 VTRS's lead over XRAY getting stronger or weaker?
VTRS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-07, when VTRS moved ahead of XRAY.
What would change the VTRS vs XRAY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XRAY closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTRS's edge; XRAY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VTRS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate VTRS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about VTRS and XRAY?
VTRS: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. XRAY: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 VTRS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On XRAY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare VTRS and XRAY 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.