CAG vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads CAG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 43. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CAG has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CAG and JPM?
JPM leads the current stock comparison as JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Conagra Brands, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Conagra Brands, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over CAG, 53 versus 43 as of Oct 31, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CAG holds the stronger value profile. JPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Conagra Brands, 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 CAG 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 Resilience29 vs 69JPM +40
- Value68 vs 44CAG +24
- Quality24 vs 46JPM +22
- Momentum45 vs 61JPM +16
5 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CAG keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
JPM's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CAG and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CAG (Conagra Brands, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 40.9% against 13%.
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
CAGCAG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CAGCAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 40 points.
Analyst upside
JPMJPM 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 | CAG | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -6.8% | +10.7% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +29.5% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CAG | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.94% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.913 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.400 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 4 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #125 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against CAG's 8.94%. 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 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 | 43 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth 3.4% vs -7.6%; EPS growth -9% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE -24.3% vs 17.9%; gross margin 23.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin -14.4% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CAG | Value 68 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -1.3% vs -2%; vs 200-day -9.1% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 29 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside -6.8% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CAG 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Jun 29 – Oct 28JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JPM +10
- 43 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- JPM +5
- 39 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- CAG +1
- 53 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when JPM moved ahead of CAG.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CAG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.72%)
- 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.41%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.9%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1CAG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2CAG'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
JPM leads on balance| Metric | CAG | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.4% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -9% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 23.9% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | -14.4% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -24.3% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.14 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CAG | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.6% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.2% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | -19.6% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -23.9% | 12.9% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | CAG | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.9 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 22.4 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.3% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.1% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.9% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CAG | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.34 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.79 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.32 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -37.2% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -30.5% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.9% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CAG or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 53 against CAG's 43. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CAG 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 CAG or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 CAG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 40 points; CAG leads Value by 24 points; JPM leads Quality by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CAG or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply -6.8% upside for CAG and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors JPM. 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, CAG or JPM?
CAG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, CAG or JPM?
CAG 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, CAG or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, CAG or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 40 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 CAG more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 23.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin -14.4% vs 28.2%; ttm roe -24.3% vs 17.9%.
Is JPM's lead over CAG getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when JPM moved ahead of CAG.
What would change the CAG vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CAG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; CAG'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 CAG and JPM?
CAG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 CAG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CAG 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.