ABT vs JPM Stock Comparison
ABT currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ABT and JPM?
ABT leads the current stock comparison as Abbott Laboratories, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Abbott Laboratories vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
ABT leads
ABT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ABT, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Abbott Laboratories
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ABT over JPM, 55 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. ABT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ABT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ABT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ABT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Abbott Laboratories and JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 ABT and JPM 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.
- Risk Resilience56 vs 69JPM +13
- Quality55 vs 46ABT +9
- Value51 vs 44ABT +7
- Momentum59 vs 61Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ABT. ABT’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; JPM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
ABT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ABT and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ABT (Abbott Laboratories): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
ABTABT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ABTABT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ABTABT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
ABTABT 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 | ABT | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.1% | +10.7% | ABT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ABT | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.38% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.440 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.360 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #90 | #120 |
ABT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.38% a year against JPM's 9.04%. 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ABT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 55 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth 3.3% vs -7.6%; TTM ROE 9.1% vs 17.9%; gross margin 57.1% vs 63.2%; operating margin 15.2% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ABT | Value 51 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 1.4% vs -2%; vs 200-day 0.7% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 56 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | ABT | Target upside 15.1% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ABT and JPM 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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'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 ABT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30ABT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ABT +2
- 55 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- ABT +5
- 55 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- ABT +5
- 49 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- ABT +7
- 58 vs 51
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 22 when ABT moved ahead of JPM.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
JPM 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 +1.56%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.9%, 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.
- 1JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABT's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ABT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate ABT'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
JPM leads on balance| Metric | ABT | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.3% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 57.1% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 15.2% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.1% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 3.32 |
Performance
ABT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ABT | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.1% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.9% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.8% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.4% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | -18.1% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -19.1% | 12.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ABT | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.9 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.7% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.6% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | ABT | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.78 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.13 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -36.8% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.3% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ABT or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ABT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 55 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from quality and value. JPM 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 ABT or JPM the better buy right now?
ABT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ABT over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; ABT leads Quality by 9 points; ABT leads Value by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ABT or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +15.1% upside for ABT and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors ABT. 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, ABT or JPM?
ABT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ABT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, ABT or JPM?
ABT 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, ABT or JPM?
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, ABT or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 ABT more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.1% vs 63.2%; operating margin 15.2% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 9.1% vs 17.9%.
Is ABT's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
ABT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-22, when ABT moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the ABT vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABT's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ABT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate ABT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ABT and JPM?
ABT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. JPM: 2 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 ABT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ABT and JPM 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.