CTRA vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads CTRA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 49. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CTRA has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CTRA 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
Coterra Energy Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CTRA. Wall Street currently favors CTRA on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Coterra Energy Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over CTRA, 53 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while CTRA 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 CTRA. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. JPM lead: Reversed — CTRA led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 4.
Compare Coterra Energy 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 CTRA 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 Resilience52 vs 69JPM +17
- Quality55 vs 46CTRA +9
- Value42 vs 44Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; CTRA keeps a meaningful quality 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.
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 — CTRA 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.
CTRA (Coterra Energy Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 44.4% against 13%.
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
CTRACTRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
CTRACTRA 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 CTRA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CTRA | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29% | +10.7% | CTRA has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CTRA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 17.08% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.400 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.880 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | — | 5 |
| No cut in window | — | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #120 |
CTRA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 17.08% a year against JPM's 9.04%.
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
2 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 | 49 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 27.1% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 11.3% vs 17.9%; gross margin 39% vs 63.2%; operating margin 31.1% vs 28.2% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 44 |
| Technicals | CTRA | Price vs 50-day -1.7% vs -2%; vs 200-day 18.8% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 52 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | CTRA | Target upside 29% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTRA 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Reversed — CTRA led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 4.
- Today
- JPM +4
- 49 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +1
- 49 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- CTRA +5
- 49 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +3
- 49 vs 52
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 16 when CTRA 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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 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.
- 1CTRA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2CTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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
Split| Metric | CTRA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.6% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 27.1% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 39% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 31.1% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.3% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 3.32 |
Performance
CTRA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CTRA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.7% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.7% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.8% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 33.5% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 23.7% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.8% | 12.9% |
Technicals
CTRA has the stronger structure| Metric | CTRA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.8 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.2 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.7% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.8% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.4% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CTRA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.72 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.71 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.35 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -14.9% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -10.3% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 32% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTRA or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 53 against CTRA's 49. The edge comes from risk resilience. CTRA 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 CTRA or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over CTRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; CTRA leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTRA or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +29% upside for CTRA and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors CTRA. 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, CTRA or JPM?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, CTRA or JPM?
CTRA 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, CTRA or JPM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CTRA or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 CTRA more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 39% vs 63.2%; operating margin 31.1% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 11.3% vs 17.9%. CTRA 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 CTRA getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Reversed — CTRA led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-16, when CTRA moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the CTRA vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CTRA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; CTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 CTRA and JPM?
CTRA: No active signals. 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. On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CTRA 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.