FICO vs FISV Stock Comparison
Fair Isaac Corporation vs Fiserv, Inc.
FISV leads
FISV leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value. Wall Street currently favors FICO on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support FISV.
Fair Isaac Corporation
Fiserv, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FISV over FICO, 58 versus 39 as of Sep 5, 2026. FISV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while FICO holds the stronger quality 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 Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. FISV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fair Isaac Corporation and Fiserv, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%13 vs 59FISV +46
- Value30%46 vs 74FISV +28
- Risk Resilience15%29 vs 49FISV +20
- Quality30%60 vs 46FICO +14
5 of 6 evidence groups favor FISV. FISV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; FICO keeps a meaningful quality 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 -41
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +12
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
FISV's lead widened by 15 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 momentum and value.
FICO (Fair Isaac Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 74.8% against 37.8%.
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
FISVFISV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FISVFISV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISVFISV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
FISVFISV on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
FISVFISV on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 | +60.4% | +17.6% | FICO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +54.2% | +72.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 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 | 39 vs 58 |
| 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 -20.2% vs 1.6%; vs 200-day -28.5% vs -9.1% |
| Risk Resilience | FISV | Risk Resilience 29 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | FICO | Target upside 60.4% vs 17.6% |
✓ 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 rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4FISV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FISV +19
- 39 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- FISV +3
- 55 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- FISV +18
- 41 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- FICO +2
- 53 vs 51
The lead changed hands 7 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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.73%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.79%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
FICO is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -16.68%, AIQ -12 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.51%, 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.
- 1FICO closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 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 starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
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 5 of 5 windows| Metric | FICO | FISV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -19.2% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.5% | 1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18% | -2.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -36.8% | -16% |
| Year to date | -42% | -21.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -38.7% | — |
Technicals
FISV has the stronger structure| Metric | FICO | FISV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.6 | 55.3 |
| ADX (14) | 13 | 7.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -20.2% | 1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -28.5% | -9.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 74.8% | 37.8% |
Risk
FISV is the more resilient| Metric | FICO | FISV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.42 | 0.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.64 | -0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.75 | -0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -50.9% | -32.5% |
| Current drawdown | -50.4% | -24.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 56.8% | 38.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.1% | -3.2% |
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 Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against FICO's 39. The edge comes from momentum and value. FICO 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 FICO or FISV the better buy right now?
FISV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FISV over FICO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FISV leads Momentum by 46 points; FISV leads Value by 28 points; FISV leads Risk Resilience by 20 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 +60.4% upside for FICO and +17.6% 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?
FISV on the Momentum factor, by 46 points. 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, 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 20 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 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 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 7 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 Momentum gap — currently 46 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 starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about FICO and FISV?
FICO: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FISV: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. 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
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.