CTSH vs JPM Stock Comparison
CTSH currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 69 vs 52. The clearest difference is value, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CTSH and JPM?
CTSH leads the current stock comparison as Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
CTSH leads
CTSH leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JPM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CTSH, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CTSH over JPM, 69 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. CTSH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CTSH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JPM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTSH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CTSH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation 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 CTSH 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.
- Value73 vs 44CTSH +29
- Momentum82 vs 58CTSH +24
- Quality57 vs 46CTSH +11
- Risk Resilience61 vs 68JPM +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CTSH. CTSH’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; 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 +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
CTSH's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTSH and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CTSH (Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
CTSHCTSH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CTSHCTSH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CTSHCTSH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
CTSHCTSH on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
JPMJPM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CTSH, analyst targets favor JPM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CTSH | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -9.3% | +11.3% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +69.7% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 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 | CTSH | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.10% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.880 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.240 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #188 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against CTSH's 7.10%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTSH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CTSH | 69 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth 1.3% vs -7.6%; EPS growth -2.2% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 14.9% vs 17.9%; gross margin 32% vs 63.2%; operating margin 15.8% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CTSH | Value 73 vs 44 |
| Technicals | CTSH | Price vs 50-day 14.5% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day 11.7% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 61 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside -9.3% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTSH 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 wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 CTSH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CTSH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CTSH +17
- 69 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- CTSH +21
- 68 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- CTSH +14
- 57 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CTSH +12
- 65 vs 53
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when CTSH 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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only CTSH
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
CTSH 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.01%, 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 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTSH's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3CTSH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
JPM leads on balance| Metric | CTSH | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.3% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -2.2% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 32% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 15.8% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.9% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 3.32 |
Performance
CTSH leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CTSH | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 11.2% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 16.2% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 47.5% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.8% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | -17.9% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.8% | 12.3% |
Technicals
CTSH has the stronger structure| Metric | CTSH | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 76.9 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 26.3 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.5% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.7% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.5% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CTSH | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.13 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.28 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -55.3% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.1% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTSH or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CTSH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 69 against JPM's 52. The edge comes from value and momentum. 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 CTSH or JPM the better buy right now?
CTSH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CTSH over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CTSH leads Value by 29 points; CTSH leads Momentum by 24 points; CTSH leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTSH or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply -9.3% upside for CTSH and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors JPM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CTSH. 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, CTSH or JPM?
CTSH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CTSH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, CTSH or JPM?
CTSH 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, CTSH or JPM?
CTSH on the Momentum factor, by 24 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, CTSH or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 CTSH more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 32% vs 63.2%; operating margin 15.8% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 14.9% vs 17.9%.
Is CTSH's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
CTSH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-08, when CTSH moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the CTSH 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 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTSH's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; CTSH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 CTSH and JPM?
CTSH: 5 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 CTSH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CTSH 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.