AAPL vs FBNC Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads FBNC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between AAPL and FBNC?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs First Bancorp
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FBNC on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
First Bancorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over FBNC, 63 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. AAPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FBNC. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. AAPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 points over 30 sessions. AAPL leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Apple Inc. and First Bancorp 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 AAPL and FBNC 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.
- Momentum70 vs 51AAPL +19
- Quality80 vs 66AAPL +14
- Value38 vs 30AAPL +8
- Risk Resilience68 vs 60AAPL +8
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
AAPL's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and FBNC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
FBNC (First Bancorp): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 22.6% against 16.4%.
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
AAPLAAPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AAPLAAPL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AAPLAAPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
AAPLAAPL on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
FBNCFBNC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AAPL, analyst targets favor FBNC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AAPL | FBNC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.3% | +15.2% | FBNC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.6% | +14.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 2 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AAPL | FBNC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.99% | 4.80% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.808 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.030 | $0.910 |
| Years increased | 5 | 3 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #254 | #259 |
AAPL grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.99% a year against FBNC's 4.80%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AAPL | 63 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | AAPLon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs -86.5%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 8%; gross margin 48.7% vs 63.6%; operating margin 33.2% vs 11.1% — AAPL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AAPL | Value 38 vs 30 |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs -3.1%; vs 200-day 15.8% vs 2.3% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 68 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | FBNC | Target upside -3.3% vs 15.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and FBNC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 AAPL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AAPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +12
- 63 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +14
- 61 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +15
- 63 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- FBNC +8
- 51 vs 59
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when AAPL moved ahead of FBNC.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AAPL
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.5%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FBNC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
AAPL 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.86%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1FBNC closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2FBNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate AAPL'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
AAPL leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | FBNC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | -86.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 63.6% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 11.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.04 |
Performance
AAPL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | FBNC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | 2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.2% | -1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.6% | 4.1% |
| Year to date | 24.9% | 21.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 37.2% | 32.9% |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | FBNC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.5 | 52.3 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 27.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | -3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.8% | 2.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 22.6% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | FBNC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.62 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.18 | 0.99 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.6 | 1.42 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -15.3% |
| Current drawdown | -1.1% | -7.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.4% | 25.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or FBNC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 63 against FBNC's 51. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 AAPL or FBNC the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AAPL over FBNC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Momentum by 19 points; AAPL leads Quality by 14 points; AAPL leads Value by 8 points. AAPL leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by FBNC simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or FBNC?
Analyst price targets imply -3.3% upside for AAPL and +15.2% for FBNC, so the Street currently favors FBNC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AAPL. 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, AAPL or FBNC?
AAPL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AAPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, AAPL or FBNC?
AAPL 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, AAPL or FBNC?
AAPL on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, AAPL or FBNC?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 AAPL more profitable than FBNC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 63.6%; operating margin 33.2% vs 11.1%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 8%. AAPL leads on two measures and FBNC 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 AAPL's lead over FBNC getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when AAPL moved ahead of FBNC.
What would change the AAPL vs FBNC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FBNC closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; FBNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate AAPL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AAPL and FBNC?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. FBNC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FBNC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and FBNC 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.