WMT vs UNH Stock Comparison
Walmart Inc. vs UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
UNH leads
UNH leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from WMT. Wall Street currently favors WMT on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support UNH, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Walmart Inc.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNH over WMT, 48 versus 40 as of Sep 2, 2026. UNH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while WMT holds the stronger quality profile. UNH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WMT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UNH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. UNH lead: Reversed — WMT led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNH now leads by 8.
Compare Walmart Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 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.
- Value30%34 vs 53UNH +19
- Momentum25%25 vs 39UNH +14
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 60UNH +12
- Quality30%53 vs 44WMT +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor UNH. UNH’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; WMT keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
UNH's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — WMT and UNH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UNH (UnitedHealth Group Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
WMT (Walmart Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 37.8% against 20.6%.
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
UNHUNH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
WMTWMT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UNHUNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
UNHUNH on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
UNHUNH on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
WMTWMT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors UNH, analyst targets favor WMT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | WMT | UNH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.9% | +17.5% | WMT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.3% | +33.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 20 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UNH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UNH | 40 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | WMTon balance | EPS growth 26.4% vs -12.3%; ROE 23.9% vs 14.4%; gross margin 25% vs 22.5%; operating margin 4.2% vs 4.8% — WMT takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | UNH | Value 34 vs 53 |
| Technicals | UNH | Price vs 50-day -5.1% vs -3.3%; vs 200-day -11.6% vs 11.2% |
| Risk Resilience | UNH | Risk Resilience 48 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | WMT | Target upside 23.9% vs 17.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of WMT 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 moderate at 8 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 UNH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1UNH lead: Reversed — WMT led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNH now leads by 8.
- Today
- UNH +8
- 40 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- UNH +9
- 39 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- WMT +4
- 47 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- UNH +16
- 42 vs 58
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when UNH moved ahead of WMT.
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 / 3 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.11%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.86%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
UNH 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 +0.1%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.63%, 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.
- 1WMT closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNH's edge.
- 2WMT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UNH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
WMT leads on balance| Metric | WMT | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.8% | 0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.4% | -12.3% |
| Gross margin | 25% | 22.5% |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 4.8% |
| Return on equity | 23.9% | 14.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.79 | 0.7 |
Technicals
UNH has the stronger structure| Metric | WMT | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.7 | 39.6 |
| ADX (14) | 18.9 | 25.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.1% | -3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.6% | 11.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.8% | 20.6% |
Risk
UNH is the more resilient| Metric | WMT | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.08 | 0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.32 | 0.79 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.42 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -23.5% | -30% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -10.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.1% | 35.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, WMT or UNH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UNH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 48 against WMT's 40. The edge comes from value and momentum. WMT 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 WMT or UNH the better buy right now?
UNH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 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 UNH over WMT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. UNH leads Value by 19 points; UNH leads Momentum by 14 points; UNH leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, WMT or UNH?
Analyst price targets imply +23.9% upside for WMT and +17.5% for UNH, so the Street currently favors WMT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors UNH. 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, WMT or UNH?
UNH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, WMT or UNH?
WMT 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, WMT or UNH?
UNH on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, WMT or UNH?
UNH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UNH on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 WMT more profitable than UNH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 25% vs 22.5%; operating margin 4.2% vs 4.8%; roe 23.9% vs 14.4%. WMT leads on two measures and UNH 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 UNH's lead over WMT getting stronger or weaker?
UNH lead: Reversed — WMT led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNH now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when UNH moved ahead of WMT.
What would change the WMT vs UNH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WMT closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNH's edge; WMT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; UNH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about WMT and UNH?
WMT: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. UNH: 1 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 WMT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UNH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare WMT and UNH 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.