ALHC vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads ALHC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 40. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between ALHC and JPM?
JPM leads the current stock comparison as JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alignment Healthcare, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ALHC on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alignment Healthcare, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over ALHC, 53 versus 40 as of Oct 31, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. JPM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ALHC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alignment Healthcare, Inc. 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 ALHC 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.
- Momentum36 vs 61JPM +25
- Risk Resilience46 vs 69JPM +23
- Quality37 vs 46JPM +9
- Value42 vs 44Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
JPM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALHC and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
ALHC (Alignment Healthcare, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 70.1% against 13%.
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
JPMJPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ALHCALHC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
ALHCALHC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors JPM, analyst targets favor ALHC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ALHC | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +87.3% | +10.7% | ALHC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +95.4% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | 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 JPM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JPM | 40 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | ALHCon balance | revenue growth 8.1% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 223.7% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 20% vs 17.9%; gross margin 12.5% vs 63.2%; operating margin 1.2% vs 28.2% — ALHC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -27.9% vs -2%; vs 200-day -51.7% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 46 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | ALHC | Target upside 87.3% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALHC and JPM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JPM +13
- 40 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +10
- 40 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- JPM +5
- 39 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +10
- 41 vs 51
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only ALHC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (68.10%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.49%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
JPM 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 -9.8%, 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.
- 1ALHC closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2ALHC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
ALHC leads on balance| Metric | ALHC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 223.7% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 12.5% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 1.2% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.25 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ALHC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.1% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -56% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -62.3% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | -58.6% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -53.3% | 12.9% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | ALHC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.1 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 37.2 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -27.9% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -51.7% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 70.1% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | ALHC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.37 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.84 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.99 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -69.3% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -66.7% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.6% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.9% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALHC or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 53 against ALHC's 40. 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 ALHC or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over ALHC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Momentum by 25 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; JPM leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALHC or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +87.3% upside for ALHC and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors ALHC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors JPM. 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, ALHC or JPM?
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, ALHC or JPM?
ALHC 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, ALHC or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, ALHC or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 ALHC more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 12.5% vs 63.2%; operating margin 1.2% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 20% vs 17.9%. ALHC leads on one measure and JPM on two measures, 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 JPM's lead over ALHC getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ALHC vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ALHC closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; ALHC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; JPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ALHC and JPM?
ALHC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. 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 ALHC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ALHC 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.