FIS vs IBM Stock Comparison
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. vs International Business Machines Corporation
IBM leads
IBM leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors FIS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support IBM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
International Business Machines Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBM over FIS, 58 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. IBM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while FIS holds the stronger value profile. IBM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FIS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IBM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. IBM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. and International Business Machines Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FIS and IBM 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%49 vs 61IBM +12
- Value30%75 vs 67FIS +8
- Risk Resilience15%45 vs 51IBM +6
- Momentum25%47 vs 49Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor IBM. IBM’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 -5
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
IBM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FIS and IBM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IBM (International Business Machines Corporation): 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 — but at materially higher volatility, 32.9% against 25.2%.
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
IBMIBM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
IBMIBM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISFIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
IBMIBM on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 IBM, analyst targets favor FIS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FIS | IBM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21.3% | +14.6% | FIS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +53.1% | +65% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IBM. 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 | 56 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | IBM | revenue growth 2.5% vs 7.8%; EPS growth -90.2% vs 76.9%; TTM ROE 22.6% vs 33.5%; gross margin 37.1% vs 58.4%; operating margin 16.4% vs 17.9% |
| Valuation | FIS | Value 75 vs 67 |
| Technicals | IBM | Price vs 50-day 0% vs -2.7%; vs 200-day -15.5% vs -10.5% |
| Risk Resilience | IBM | Risk Resilience 45 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | FIS | Target upside 21.3% vs 14.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FIS and IBM 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 IBM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4IBM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IBM +2
- 56 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- IBM +4
- 53 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- IBM +3
- 59 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- IBM +4
- 57 vs 61
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 4 when IBM 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 / 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
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.69%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
IBM 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.92%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1FIS closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBM's edge.
- 2FIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IBM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
IBM leads on balance| Metric | FIS | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.5% | 7.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -90.2% | 76.9% |
| Gross margin | 37.1% | 58.4% |
| Operating margin | 16.4% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.6% | 33.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.32 | 1.89 |
Performance
IBM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FIS | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.1% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.3% | -17.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.6% | -9.3% |
| Year to date | -37% | -20.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -38.6% | -3.8% |
Technicals
IBM has the stronger structure| Metric | FIS | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.9 | 56.6 |
| ADX (14) | 11.6 | 8.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0% | -2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -15.5% | -10.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.9% | 25.2% |
Risk
IBM is the more resilient| Metric | FIS | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.48 | 0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.97 | 0.07 |
| Max drawdown | -45.3% | -37.5% |
| Current drawdown | -39.3% | -28.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.6% | 48.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FIS or IBM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IBM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 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 FIS or IBM the better buy right now?
IBM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IBM over FIS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. IBM leads Quality by 12 points; FIS leads Value by 8 points; IBM leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FIS or IBM?
Analyst price targets imply +21.3% upside for FIS and +14.6% for IBM, so the Street currently favors FIS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors IBM. 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, FIS or IBM?
FIS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, FIS or IBM?
IBM 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, FIS or IBM?
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, FIS or IBM?
IBM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IBM on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 FIS more profitable than IBM?
IBM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 37.1% vs 58.4%; operating margin 16.4% vs 17.9%; ttm roe 22.6% vs 33.5%.
Is IBM's lead over FIS getting stronger or weaker?
IBM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-04, when IBM moved ahead of FIS.
What would change the FIS vs IBM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FIS closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBM's edge; FIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; IBM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 FIS and IBM?
FIS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IBM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 FIS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On IBM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FIS and IBM 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.