FFIV vs FIS Stock Comparison
F5, Inc. vs Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
FFIV leads
FFIV leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FIS on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FFIV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
F5, Inc.
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FFIV over FIS, 62 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. FFIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while FIS holds the stronger value profile. FFIV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FIS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FFIV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. FFIV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare F5, Inc. and Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FFIV and FIS 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.
- Quality30%79 vs 49FFIV +30
- Value30%56 vs 75FIS +19
- Risk Resilience15%64 vs 45FFIV +19
- Momentum25%46 vs 47Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FFIV. FFIV’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; FIS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
FFIV's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FFIV and FIS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FFIV (F5, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
FIS (Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
FFIVFFIV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FFIVFFIV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISFIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FFIVFFIV on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
FISFIS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FFIV, analyst targets favor FIS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FFIV | FIS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.4% | +21.3% | FIS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.2% | +53.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FFIV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FFIV | 62 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | FFIVon balance | revenue growth 6.6% vs 2.5%; EPS growth 40.6% vs -90.2%; TTM ROE 19.9% vs 22.6%; gross margin 82.2% vs 37.1%; operating margin 24.5% vs 16.4% — FFIV takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FIS | Value 56 vs 75 |
| Technicals | FFIV | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs 0%; vs 200-day 19.3% vs -15.5% |
| Risk Resilience | FFIV | Risk Resilience 64 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | FIS | Target upside 1.4% vs 21.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FFIV and FIS 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 6 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 FFIV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FFIV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FFIV +6
- 62 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- FFIV +8
- 61 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- FFIV +10
- 69 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- FFIV +14
- 71 vs 57
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when FFIV moved ahead of FIS.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (23.67%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (18.36%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
FFIV 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.43%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.92%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1FIS closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to FFIV's edge.
- 2FIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FFIV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate FFIV'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
FFIV leads on balance| Metric | FFIV | FIS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.6% | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40.6% | -90.2% |
| Gross margin | 82.2% | 37.1% |
| Operating margin | 24.5% | 16.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.9% | 22.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | 1.32 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FFIV | FIS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.4% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.7% | 2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.4% | -18.6% |
| Year to date | 53% | -37% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | -38.6% |
Technicals
FFIV has the stronger structure| Metric | FFIV | FIS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.7 | 55.9 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 11.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19.3% | -15.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.3% | 32.9% |
Risk
FFIV is the more resilient| Metric | FFIV | FIS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.95 | 0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.67 | -1.48 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.9 | -1.97 |
| Max drawdown | -34.7% | -45.3% |
| Current drawdown | -9.5% | -39.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 36.4% | 32.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FFIV or FIS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FFIV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against FIS's 56. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. FIS is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 FFIV or FIS the better buy right now?
FFIV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FFIV over FIS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FFIV leads Quality by 30 points; FIS leads Value by 19 points; FFIV leads Risk Resilience by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FFIV or FIS?
Analyst price targets imply +1.4% upside for FFIV and +21.3% for FIS, so the Street currently favors FIS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FFIV. 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, FFIV or FIS?
FIS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, FFIV or FIS?
FFIV 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, FFIV or FIS?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, FFIV or FIS?
FFIV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FFIV on Risk Resilience, by 19 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FFIV more profitable than FIS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 82.2% vs 37.1%; operating margin 24.5% vs 16.4%; ttm roe 19.9% vs 22.6%. FFIV leads on two measures and FIS 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 FFIV's lead over FIS getting stronger or weaker?
FFIV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-31, when FFIV moved ahead of FIS.
What would change the FFIV vs FIS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FIS closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to FFIV's edge; FIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FFIV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate FFIV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FFIV and FIS?
FFIV: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. FIS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 FFIV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FIS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FFIV and FIS with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.