CCL vs JPM Stock Comparison
Compare CCL vs JPM on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between CCL and JPM?
CCL and JPM are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Carnival Corporation & plc vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
CCL and JPM are effectively level
CCL and JPM are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Carnival Corporation & plc
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CCL and JPM as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Carnival Corporation & plc 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 CCL 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 Resilience19 vs 68JPM +49
- Value63 vs 44CCL +19
- Momentum72 vs 58CCL +14
- Quality40 vs 46JPM +6
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +8
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
CCL's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCL and JPM both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
CCLCCL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CCLCCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
CCLCCL on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 49 points.
Analyst upside
CCLCCL 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 | CCL | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.9% | +11.3% | CCL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.4% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 52 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | CCLon balance | revenue growth 8.1% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 105.3% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 24.4% vs 17.9%; gross margin 34.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 16.3% vs 28.2% — CCL takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCL | Value 63 vs 44 |
| Technicals | CCL | Price vs 50-day 10% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -0.6% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 19 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | CCL | Target upside 20.9% vs 11.3% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CCL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 52 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- CCL +5
- 52 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- CCL +5
- 48 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +10
- 43 vs 53
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CCL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.76%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.65%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 +0.89%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.02%, AIQ +3 points).
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
CCL leads on balance| Metric | CCL | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 105.3% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 34.4% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 16.3% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.4% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 2.02 | 3.32 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CCL | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 21.5% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.7% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.1% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | -11.4% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.1% | 12.3% |
Technicals
CCL has the stronger structure| Metric | CCL | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.5 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 33.3 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.6% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.5% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CCL | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.06 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.07 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.14 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -35.9% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -20.4% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.7% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, CCL or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +20.9% upside for CCL and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors CCL. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CCL or JPM?
CCL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, CCL or JPM?
CCL 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, CCL or JPM?
CCL on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, CCL or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 49 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 CCL more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 34.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 16.3% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 24.4% vs 17.9%. CCL 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.
What do the current signals say about CCL and JPM?
CCL: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 CCL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CCL 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.