ASB vs WSFS Stock Comparison
Associated Banc-Corp vs WSFS Financial Corporation
WSFS leads
WSFS leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from ASB. Wall Street currently favors ASB on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support WSFS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Associated Banc-Corp
WSFS Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WSFS over ASB, 58 versus 57 as of Sep 5, 2026. WSFS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while ASB holds the stronger value profile. WSFS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ASB. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WSFS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. WSFS lead: Reversed — ASB led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WSFS now leads by 1.
Compare Associated Banc-Corp and WSFS Financial Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare ASB and WSFS 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.
- Quality30%52 vs 70WSFS +18
- Value30%59 vs 51ASB +8
- Risk Resilience15%70 vs 65ASB +5
- Momentum25%51 vs 48Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor WSFS. WSFS’s edge is concentrated in quality; ASB keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +18
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +16
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
WSFS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ASB and WSFS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WSFS (WSFS Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
ASB (Associated Banc-Corp): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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
WSFSWSFS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ASBASB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ASBASB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ASBASB on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
ASBASB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WSFS, analyst targets favor ASB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ASB | WSFS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +3.8% | +2.6% | ASB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.6% | +13.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 4 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WSFS. 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 | 57 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | WSFSon balance | revenue growth 16.5% vs 3.9%; TTM ROE 9.9% vs 11.7%; gross margin 60.5% vs 78.4%; operating margin 24.5% vs 31.3% — WSFS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ASB | Value 59 vs 51 |
| Technicals | WSFS | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day 10.8% vs 15.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ASB | Risk Resilience 70 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | ASB | Target upside 3.8% vs 2.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ASB and WSFS 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 WSFS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4WSFS lead: Reversed — ASB led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WSFS now leads by 1.
- Today
- WSFS +1
- 57 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- ASB +1
- 54 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ASB +1
- 63 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- WSFS +2
- 63 vs 65
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when WSFS moved ahead of ASB.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.58%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.68%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
WSFS 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.52%, AIQ +5 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.75%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1ASB closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to WSFS's edge.
- 2ASB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3WSFS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
WSFS leads on balance| Metric | ASB | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.5% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -9.9% | -0.6% |
| Gross margin | 60.5% | 78.4% |
| Operating margin | 24.5% | 31.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.9% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.01 | 0.11 |
Performance
WSFS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ASB | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | 1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.9% | 10.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.4% | 26% |
| Year to date | 20.6% | 43.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.3% | 38.5% |
Technicals
WSFS has the stronger structure| Metric | ASB | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.3 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 17 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.8% | 15.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.8% | 15.1% |
Risk
ASB is the more resilient| Metric | ASB | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.82 | 0.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.57 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.78 | 1.91 |
| Max drawdown | -17.1% | -13.8% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.5% | 23.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ASB or WSFS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WSFS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against ASB's 57. The edge comes from quality. ASB is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 ASB or WSFS the better buy right now?
WSFS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WSFS over ASB?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WSFS leads Quality by 18 points; ASB leads Value by 8 points; ASB leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ASB or WSFS?
Analyst price targets imply +3.8% upside for ASB and +2.6% for WSFS, so the Street currently favors ASB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WSFS. 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, ASB or WSFS?
ASB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ASB 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, ASB or WSFS?
ASB 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, ASB or WSFS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, ASB or WSFS?
ASB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ASB on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 ASB more profitable than WSFS?
WSFS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.5% vs 78.4%; operating margin 24.5% vs 31.3%; ttm roe 9.9% vs 11.7%.
Is WSFS's lead over ASB getting stronger or weaker?
WSFS lead: Reversed — ASB led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WSFS now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when WSFS moved ahead of ASB.
What would change the ASB vs WSFS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ASB closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to WSFS's edge; ASB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; WSFS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ASB and WSFS?
ASB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WSFS: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 ASB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WSFS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ASB and WSFS 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.