CHTR vs JPM Stock Comparison
CHTR currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 52. The clearest difference is value, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CHTR and JPM?
CHTR leads the current stock comparison as Charter Communications, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Charter Communications, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
CHTR leads
CHTR leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CHTR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Charter Communications, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHTR over JPM, 55 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. CHTR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CHTR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHTR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CHTR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Charter Communications, 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 CHTR 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 Resilience30 vs 68JPM +38
- Value75 vs 44CHTR +31
- Momentum46 vs 58JPM +12
- Quality56 vs 46CHTR +10
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CHTR. CHTR’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; JPM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
CHTR's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHTR and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHTR (Charter Communications, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, technicals.
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
CHTRCHTR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CHTRCHTR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CHTRCHTR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 38 points.
Analyst upside
CHTRCHTR 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 | CHTR | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +57.4% | +11.3% | CHTR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +165.3% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHTR. 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 | 55 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 16.1% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 30.4% vs 17.9%; gross margin 56.6% vs 63.2%; operating margin 23.7% vs 28.2% |
| Valuation | CHTR | Value 75 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -18.3% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -34.8% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 30 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | CHTR | Target upside 57.4% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CHTR and JPM 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 CHTR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CHTR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHTR +3
- 55 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- CHTR +6
- 53 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- CHTR +4
- 47 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CHTR +4
- 57 vs 53
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when CHTR moved ahead of JPM.
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 CHTR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (28.67%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.64%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long 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.
CHTR 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.52%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1JPM closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHTR's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3CHTR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
Split| Metric | CHTR | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.5% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.1% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 56.6% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 23.7% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.4% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 5.7 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CHTR | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.9% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.2% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.9% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -54.5% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | -47.3% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -56.9% | 12.3% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | CHTR | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.6 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 32.7 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18.3% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -34.8% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.7% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CHTR | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.25 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.39 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.68 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -59.5% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -56.5% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 52.6% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.8% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CHTR or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHTR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 55 against JPM's 52. The edge comes from value and quality. JPM is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 CHTR or JPM the better buy right now?
CHTR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CHTR over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 38 points; CHTR leads Value by 31 points; JPM leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CHTR or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +57.4% upside for CHTR and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors CHTR. 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, CHTR or JPM?
CHTR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CHTR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, CHTR or JPM?
CHTR 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, CHTR or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, CHTR or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 38 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 CHTR more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 56.6% vs 63.2%; operating margin 23.7% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 30.4% vs 17.9%. CHTR 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 CHTR's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
CHTR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-11, when CHTR moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the CHTR vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHTR's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; CHTR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 CHTR and JPM?
CHTR: 1 bullish / 2 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 CHTR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CHTR 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.