CLF vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads CLF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 45. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CLF has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CLF 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
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over CLF, 53 versus 45 as of Oct 31, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CLF holds the stronger value profile. JPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 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 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cleveland-Cliffs 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 CLF 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 Resilience27 vs 69JPM +42
- Quality11 vs 46JPM +35
- Value65 vs 44CLF +21
- Momentum72 vs 61CLF +11
4 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CLF 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
JPM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLF 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.
CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 82.5% 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
CLFCLF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLFCLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
CLFCLF on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 42 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 | CLF | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -9.2% | +10.7% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +65.5% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
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 | 45 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth 7.4% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 208% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE -8.1% vs 17.9%; gross margin 1.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin -1% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CLF | Value 65 vs 44 |
| Technicals | CLF | Price vs 50-day 16.3% vs -2%; vs 200-day 22.7% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 27 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside -9.2% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLF 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 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JPM +8
- 45 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +6
- 44 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- JPM +4
- 40 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +12
- 40 vs 52
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only CLF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.25%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.07%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1CLF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2CLF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 | CLF | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.4% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 208% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 1.9% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | -1% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.1% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.34 | 3.32 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CLF | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 26.6% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.9% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 5% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.2% | 12.9% |
Technicals
CLF has the stronger structure| Metric | CLF | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.9 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 21.5 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16.3% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 22.7% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 82.5% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CLF | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.09 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.26 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.39 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -48.2% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -7.6% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 66.5% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLF or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 53 against CLF's 45. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CLF 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 CLF or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 CLF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 42 points; JPM leads Quality by 35 points; CLF leads Value by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLF or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply -9.2% upside for CLF 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, CLF or JPM?
CLF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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, CLF or JPM?
CLF 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, CLF or JPM?
CLF on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, CLF or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 42 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 CLF more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 1.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin -1% vs 28.2%; ttm roe -8.1% vs 17.9%.
Is JPM's lead over CLF getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CLF vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; CLF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 CLF and JPM?
CLF: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 CLF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CLF 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.