FBNC vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads FBNC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 51. The clearest difference is value, while FBNC has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between FBNC and JPM?
JPM leads the current stock comparison as JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
First Bancorp vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from FBNC. Wall Street currently favors FBNC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
First Bancorp
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over FBNC, 52 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while FBNC holds the stronger quality profile. JPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FBNC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. JPM lead: Reversed — FBNC led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 1.
Compare First Bancorp 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 FBNC 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.
- Quality66 vs 46FBNC +20
- Value30 vs 44JPM +14
- Risk Resilience60 vs 68JPM +8
- Momentum51 vs 58JPM +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; FBNC keeps a meaningful quality 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 +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
JPM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FBNC and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
FBNC (First Bancorp): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 22.6% 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
JPMJPM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
FBNCFBNC 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 FBNC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FBNC | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.2% | +11.3% | FBNC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.2% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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 | FBNC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.80% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.910 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #259 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against FBNC's 4.80%. 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 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 | Even | 51 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth -86.5% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 8% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 8% vs 17.9%; gross margin 63.6% vs 63.2%; operating margin 11.1% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 30 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day 2.3% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 60 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | FBNC | Target upside 15.2% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FBNC 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 3 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'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: Reversed — FBNC led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 1.
- Today
- JPM +1
- 51 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 47 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- FBNC +5
- 48 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FBNC +6
- 59 vs 53
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when JPM moved ahead of FBNC.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FBNC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short 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.
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 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.86%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1FBNC closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2FBNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3JPM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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 | FBNC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -86.5% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 63.6% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 11.1% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 3.32 |
Performance
FBNC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FBNC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.9% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.3% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.7% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.1% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 21.2% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 32.9% | 12.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FBNC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.3 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 27.2 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.3% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.6% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | FBNC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.99 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.42 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -15.3% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -7.2% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FBNC or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against FBNC's 51. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. FBNC 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 FBNC or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over FBNC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FBNC leads Quality by 20 points; JPM leads Value by 14 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FBNC or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +15.2% upside for FBNC and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors FBNC. 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, FBNC or JPM?
JPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, FBNC or JPM?
JPM 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, FBNC or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, FBNC or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 FBNC more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.6% vs 63.2%; operating margin 11.1% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 8% vs 17.9%.
Is JPM's lead over FBNC getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Reversed — FBNC led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when JPM moved ahead of FBNC.
What would change the FBNC vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FBNC closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; FBNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; JPM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 FBNC and JPM?
FBNC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on FBNC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FBNC 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.