CEVA vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads CEVA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 40. The clearest difference is momentum, while CEVA has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CEVA 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
CEVA, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CEVA. Wall Street currently favors CEVA on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
CEVA, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over CEVA, 52 versus 40 as of Oct 22, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while CEVA holds the stronger quality profile. JPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CEVA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. JPM lead: Reversed — CEVA led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 12.
Compare CEVA, 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 CEVA 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.
- Momentum22 vs 58JPM +36
- Risk Resilience39 vs 68JPM +29
- Quality59 vs 46CEVA +13
- Value35 vs 44JPM +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; CEVA keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
JPM's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CEVA 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.
CEVA (CEVA, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 54.2% against 14.8%.
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
CEVACEVA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
CEVACEVA 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 CEVA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CEVA | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.8% | +11.3% | CEVA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.1% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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
4 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 52 |
| Fundamentals | CEVAon balance | revenue growth 7.4% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 37.5% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE -3.4% vs 17.9%; gross margin 87.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin -8.3% vs 28.2% — CEVA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 35 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -2.6% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -4.7% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 39 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | CEVA | Target upside 49.8% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CEVA 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JPM lead: Reversed — CEVA led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 12.
- Today
- JPM +12
- 40 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +7
- 40 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- CEVA +11
- 54 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +7
- 46 vs 53
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when JPM moved ahead of CEVA.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CEVA
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.98%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only JPM
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
CEVA 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 +3.12%, AIQ 0 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).
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.
- 1CEVA closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2CEVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3JPM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
CEVA leads on balance| Metric | CEVA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.4% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 87.4% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | -8.3% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.4% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CEVA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.4% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.9% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.1% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 34.2% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.5% | 12.3% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | CEVA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.8 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.6% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.7% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.2% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CEVA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.43 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -47.6% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -42.3% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.2% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CEVA or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 52 against CEVA's 40. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. CEVA is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CEVA or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 CEVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Momentum by 36 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; CEVA leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CEVA or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +49.8% upside for CEVA and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors CEVA. 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, CEVA or JPM?
JPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, CEVA or JPM?
CEVA 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, CEVA or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 36 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, CEVA or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 CEVA more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 87.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin -8.3% vs 28.2%; ttm roe -3.4% vs 17.9%. CEVA 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 CEVA getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Reversed — CEVA led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 12. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when JPM moved ahead of CEVA.
What would change the CEVA vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CEVA closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; CEVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; JPM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 CEVA and JPM?
CEVA: 2 bullish / 3 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 CEVA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CEVA 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.