EMN vs JPM Stock Comparison
EMN currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 53. The clearest difference is value, while JPM has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between EMN and JPM?
EMN leads the current stock comparison as Eastman Chemical Company, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Eastman Chemical Company vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
EMN leads
EMN leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support EMN, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Eastman Chemical Company
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EMN over JPM, 54 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. EMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while JPM holds the stronger quality profile. EMN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EMN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. EMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Eastman Chemical Company 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 EMN 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.
- Value67 vs 44EMN +23
- Quality34 vs 46JPM +12
- Momentum55 vs 61JPM +6
- Risk Resilience66 vs 69Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor EMN. EMN’s edge is concentrated in value; JPM keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
EMN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EMN and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EMN (Eastman Chemical Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, fundamentals.
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
EMNEMN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EMNEMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EMNEMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EMNEMN 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 | EMN | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19% | +10.7% | EMN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.3% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | EMN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.52% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.670 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.330 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #267 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against EMN's 4.52%. 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EMN. 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 | 54 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth 15.4% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 70.2% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 7.4% vs 17.9%; gross margin 19.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 9.4% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EMN | Value 67 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs -2%; vs 200-day -6.1% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 66 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | EMN | Target upside 19% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EMN 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 2 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 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 EMN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30EMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EMN +1
- 54 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- EMN +1
- 51 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- EMN +4
- 48 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- EMN +3
- 54 vs 51
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 23 when EMN 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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only EMN
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.76%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: BB Upper Band Breach, MACD Bullish Crossover.
EMN 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 -2.06%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.9%, AIQ 0 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 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMN's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3EMN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate EMN'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
JPM leads on balance| Metric | EMN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.4% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 70.2% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 19.9% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 9.4% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.4% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.86 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EMN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.8% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.9% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 4.4% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.3% | 12.9% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | EMN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.1 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 26.8 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.1% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.4% | 13% |
Risk
Split| Metric | EMN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.81 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.2 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.35 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -23.7% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -18.1% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.1% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EMN or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EMN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 54 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from value. JPM 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 EMN or JPM the better buy right now?
EMN 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EMN over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EMN leads Value by 23 points; JPM leads Quality by 12 points; JPM leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EMN or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +19% upside for EMN and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors EMN. 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, EMN or JPM?
EMN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, EMN or JPM?
EMN 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, EMN or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, EMN or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is EMN more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 19.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 9.4% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 7.4% vs 17.9%.
Is EMN's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
EMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-23, when EMN moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the EMN 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 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMN's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; EMN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate EMN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about EMN and JPM?
EMN: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 EMN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EMN 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.