FFIV vs JPM Stock Comparison
FFIV currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 52. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between FFIV and JPM?
FFIV leads the current stock comparison as F5, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
F5, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
FFIV leads
FFIV leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 27 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JPM on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FFIV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
F5, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FFIV over JPM, 64 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. FFIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. FFIV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JPM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FFIV today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. FFIV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare F5, 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 FFIV 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.
- Quality79 vs 46FFIV +33
- Value56 vs 44FFIV +12
- Momentum56 vs 58Even
- Risk Resilience66 vs 68Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FFIV. FFIV’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
FFIV's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FFIV and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FFIV (F5, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on 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 most heavily.
Growth
FFIVFFIV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FFIVFFIV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
JPMJPM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
JPMJPM 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 JPM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FFIV | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -13.7% | +11.3% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.2% | +32.2% | 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 | 64 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | FFIVon balance | revenue growth 6.6% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 40.6% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 19.9% vs 17.9%; gross margin 82.2% vs 63.2%; operating margin 24.5% vs 28.2% — FFIV takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FFIV | Value 56 vs 44 |
| Technicals | FFIV | Price vs 50-day 7.7% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day 27.8% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 66 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside -13.7% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FFIV and JPM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20FFIV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FFIV +12
- 64 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- FFIV +20
- 67 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- FFIV +27
- 70 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FFIV +7
- 60 vs 53
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 27 when FFIV 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only FFIV
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only JPM
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.41%, AIQ -1 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 Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to FFIV's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3FFIV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-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 | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.6% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40.6% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 82.2% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 24.5% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.9% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | 3.32 |
Performance
FFIV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FFIV | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.1% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.7% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 44.7% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 78.9% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 49.2% | 12.3% |
Technicals
FFIV has the stronger structure| Metric | FFIV | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.7% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 27.8% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.4% | 14.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FFIV | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.95 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.24 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.91 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.6% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FFIV or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FFIV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against JPM's 52. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 JPM the better buy right now?
FFIV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FFIV over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FFIV leads Quality by 33 points; FFIV leads Value by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FFIV or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply -13.7% upside for FFIV and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors JPM. 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 JPM?
FFIV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FFIV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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 JPM?
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 JPM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, FFIV 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 FFIV more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 82.2% vs 63.2%; operating margin 24.5% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 19.9% vs 17.9%. FFIV 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 FFIV's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
FFIV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 12 points over 30 sessions. 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 2026-07-27, when FFIV moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the FFIV vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to FFIV's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; FFIV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate FFIV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FFIV and JPM?
FFIV: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 FFIV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FFIV 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.