CWST vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads CWST in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 46. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CWST has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between CWST 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
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CWST on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over CWST, 52 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CWST holds the stronger momentum profile. JPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CWST. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. JPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Casella Waste Systems, 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 CWST 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 Resilience42 vs 68JPM +26
- Momentum82 vs 58CWST +24
- Quality28 vs 46JPM +18
- Value35 vs 44JPM +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CWST keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +27
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
JPM's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CWST 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.
CWST (Casella Waste Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 47.7% 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
CWSTCWST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
CWSTCWST on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 26 points.
Analyst upside
CWSTCWST 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 CWST. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CWST | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.3% | +11.3% | CWST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.4% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 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
3 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 | 46 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 18.9% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 168.8% vs -27.6%; gross margin 25.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 4.4% vs 28.2% |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 35 vs 44 |
| Technicals | CWST | Price vs 50-day 2% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day 3% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 42 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | CWST | Target upside 20.3% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CWST 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 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JPM +6
- 46 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +9
- 38 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- JPM +11
- 32 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +12
- 41 vs 53
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only CWST
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.23%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short 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.
CWST 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 7 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.06%, AIQ +7 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.
- 1CWST closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2CWST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JPM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate JPM's advantage entirely.
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 | CWST | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.9% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 168.8% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 25.4% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0.4% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.91 | 3.32 |
Performance
CWST leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CWST | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.1% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.5% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.6% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | -5% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3.7% | 12.3% |
Technicals
CWST has the stronger structure| Metric | CWST | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.9 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.7% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CWST | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.14 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.3 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.5 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -30.2% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 36.3% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CWST or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 52 against CWST's 46. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CWST is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CWST or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 CWST?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; CWST leads Momentum by 24 points; JPM leads Quality by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CWST or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +20.3% upside for CWST and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors CWST. 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, CWST 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, CWST or JPM?
CWST 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, CWST or JPM?
CWST 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, CWST or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 CWST more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 25.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 4.4% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 0.4% vs 17.9%.
Is JPM's lead over CWST getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CWST vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CWST closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; CWST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; JPM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate JPM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CWST and JPM?
CWST: 2 bullish / 3 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 CWST is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CWST 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.