ENOV vs JPM Stock Comparison
ENOV currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 53. The clearest difference is value, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ENOV and JPM?
ENOV leads the current stock comparison as Enovis Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Enovis Corporation vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
ENOV leads
ENOV leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ENOV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Enovis Corporation
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ENOV over JPM, 60 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. ENOV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ENOV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ENOV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ENOV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Enovis 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 ENOV 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.
- Value74 vs 44ENOV +30
- Risk Resilience46 vs 69JPM +23
- Momentum73 vs 61ENOV +12
- Quality42 vs 46JPM +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ENOV. ENOV’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; JPM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
ENOV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ENOV and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ENOV (Enovis Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, 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
ENOVENOV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ENOVENOV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ENOVENOV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
ENOVENOV on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
ENOVENOV 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 | ENOV | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +82.8% | +10.7% | ENOV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +65.9% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ENOV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ENOV | 60 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth -1.1% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 86.7% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE -68.2% vs 17.9%; gross margin 57.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 4.1% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ENOV | Value 74 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -1.5% vs -2%; vs 200-day -5.2% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 46 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | ENOV | Target upside 82.8% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ENOV 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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)
- 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 ENOV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30ENOV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ENOV +7
- 60 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- ENOV +9
- 59 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- ENOV +7
- 51 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- ENOV +1
- 52 vs 51
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 16 when ENOV 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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only ENOV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (14.35%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.24%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
ENOV 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 -12.71%, 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 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to ENOV's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ENOV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 | ENOV | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.1% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 86.7% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 57.4% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 4.1% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -68.2% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.93 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ENOV | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.3% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 19.9% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -25.2% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.6% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | -17.8% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -33.3% | 12.9% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | ENOV | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 81.4 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 27.2 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.5% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.2% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.4% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | ENOV | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.38 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.38 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.57 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -47% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -33.3% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 63.5% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ENOV or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ENOV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against JPM's 53. 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 ENOV or JPM the better buy right now?
ENOV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 ENOV over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ENOV leads Value by 30 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; ENOV leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ENOV or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +82.8% upside for ENOV and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors ENOV. 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, ENOV or JPM?
ENOV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ENOV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, ENOV or JPM?
ENOV 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, ENOV or JPM?
ENOV on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, ENOV or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 ENOV more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 4.1% vs 28.2%; ttm roe -68.2% vs 17.9%.
Is ENOV's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
ENOV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-16, when ENOV moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the ENOV 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 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to ENOV's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ENOV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ENOV and JPM?
ENOV: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 ENOV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ENOV 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.