FICO vs FISV Stock Comparison
FISV currently leads FICO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 55. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while FICO has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FICO and FISV?
FISV leads the current stock comparison as Fiserv, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fair Isaac Corporation vs Fiserv, Inc.
FISV leads
FISV leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FICO on target upside.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support FISV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fair Isaac Corporation
Fiserv, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FISV over FICO, 59 versus 55 as of Oct 21, 2026. FISV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while FICO holds the stronger momentum profile. FISV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FICO. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FISV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. FISV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fair Isaac Corporation and Fiserv, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare FICO and FISV 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.
- Risk Resilience29 vs 58FISV +29
- Value46 vs 74FISV +28
- Momentum75 vs 58FICO +17
- Quality60 vs 46FICO +14
5 of 6 evidence groups favor FISV. FISV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; FICO keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
FISV's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FICO and FISV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FISV (Fiserv, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
FICO (Fair Isaac Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 122.1% against 23.5%.
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
FISVFISV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FISVFISV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISVFISV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
FICOFICO on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
FISVFISV on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
FICOFICO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FISV, analyst targets favor FICO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FICO | FISV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +62.5% | +26.8% | FICO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +81.2% | +73.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 13 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FISV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FISV | 55 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | FISVon balance | revenue growth -2.5% vs 5.3%; EPS growth -6.5% vs 9.3%; TTM ROE -33.4% vs 10.8%; gross margin 85.1% vs 47.2%; operating margin 51.7% vs 21.4% — FISV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FISV | Value 46 vs 74 |
| Technicals | FISV | Price vs 50-day -14.3% vs -2.1%; vs 200-day -30.9% vs -13% |
| Risk Resilience | FISV | Risk Resilience 29 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | FICO | Target upside 62.5% vs 26.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FICO and FISV 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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)
- 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 FISV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FISV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FISV +4
- 55 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- FISV +7
- 49 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- FISV +12
- 38 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- FISV +16
- 39 vs 55
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when FICO moved ahead of FISV.
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 FICO
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.91%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FISV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
FISV 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 -0.57%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, 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.
- 1FICO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to FISV's edge.
- 2FICO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FISV'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 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate FISV'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
FISV leads on balance| Metric | FICO | FISV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -2.5% | 5.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -6.5% | 9.3% |
| Gross margin | 85.1% | 47.2% |
| Operating margin | 51.7% | 21.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -33.4% | 10.8% |
| Debt to equity | -1.37 | 1.04 |
Performance
FISV leads 3 of 5 windows| Metric | FICO | FISV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 10.6% | 3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.5% | 4.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -34.5% | -3.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -22.9% | -23.7% |
| Year to date | -52.7% | -28.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -50.6% | — |
Technicals
FISV has the stronger structure| Metric | FICO | FISV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 79.1 | 67.9 |
| ADX (14) | 27.8 | 17.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.3% | -2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -30.9% | -13% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 122.1% | 23.5% |
Risk
FISV is the more resilient| Metric | FICO | FISV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | 0.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.86 | -0.73 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.92 | -1.02 |
| Max drawdown | -67.9% | -36.5% |
| Current drawdown | -56.6% | -30.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.5% | 37.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.1% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FICO or FISV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FISV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against FICO's 55. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. FICO is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 FICO or FISV the better buy right now?
FISV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FISV over FICO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FISV leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; FISV leads Value by 28 points; FICO leads Momentum by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FICO or FISV?
Analyst price targets imply +62.5% upside for FICO and +26.8% for FISV, so the Street currently favors FICO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FISV. 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, FICO or FISV?
FISV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FISV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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, FICO or FISV?
FISV 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, FICO or FISV?
FICO on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, FICO or FISV?
FISV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FISV on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 FICO more profitable than FISV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 85.1% vs 47.2%; operating margin 51.7% vs 21.4%; ttm roe -33.4% vs 10.8%. FICO leads on two measures and FISV 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 FISV's lead over FICO getting stronger or weaker?
FISV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 4 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when FICO moved ahead of FISV.
What would change the FICO vs FISV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FICO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to FISV's edge; FICO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FISV'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 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate FISV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FICO and FISV?
FICO: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FISV: 1 bullish / 3 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 FICO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FISV it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FICO and FISV 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.