ELS vs JPM Stock Comparison
ELS currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 52. The clearest difference is momentum, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ELS and JPM?
ELS leads the current stock comparison as Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
ELS leads
ELS leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from JPM.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support ELS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ELS over JPM, 53 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. ELS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ELS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ELS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. ELS lead: Reversed — JPM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ELS now leads by 1.
Compare Equity LifeStyle Properties, 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 ELS 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 Resilience51 vs 68JPM +17
- Momentum73 vs 58ELS +15
- Value47 vs 44Even
- Quality44 vs 46Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor ELS. ELS’s edge is concentrated in 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 +16
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.
ELS's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ELS and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ELS (Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
ELSELS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ELSELS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ELSELS on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ELS | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.4% | +11.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +15.3% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ELS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.49% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.371 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.060 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #11 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against ELS's 8.49%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — REITs and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ELS. 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 | 53 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | ELSon balance | EPS growth -10.7% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 22.9% vs 17.9%; gross margin 43.3% vs 63.2%; operating margin 35.7% vs 28.2% — ELS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 47 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -3.9% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -2.5% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 51 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 10.4% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ELS 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 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)
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 ELS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ELS lead: Reversed — JPM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ELS now leads by 1.
- Today
- ELS +1
- 53 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- ELS +1
- 48 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- JPM +1
- 42 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +7
- 46 vs 53
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when ELS 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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ELS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.26%)
- 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.
ELS 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 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -4.53%, AIQ +4 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 Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to ELS's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3ELS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
ELS leads on balance| Metric | ELS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -10.7% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 43.3% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 35.7% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.9% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.88 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ELS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.1% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.8% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.4% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.7% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 2.2% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.4% | 12.3% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | ELS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.4 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 28.3 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.9% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.5% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.5% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | ELS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.18 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.17 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.28 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -15.7% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ELS or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ELS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 53 against JPM's 52. The edge comes from 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 ELS or JPM the better buy right now?
ELS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ELS over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; ELS leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ELS or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +10.4% upside for ELS and +11.3% for 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, ELS 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, ELS or JPM?
ELS 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, ELS or JPM?
ELS on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, ELS 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 ELS more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 43.3% vs 63.2%; operating margin 35.7% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 22.9% vs 17.9%. ELS leads on two measures and JPM on one measure, 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 ELS's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
ELS lead: Reversed — JPM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ELS now leads by 1. 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 2026-10-15, when ELS moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the ELS vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to ELS's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; ELS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 ELS and JPM?
ELS: 2 bullish / 3 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 ELS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ELS 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.