FIS vs IBM Stock Comparison
IBM currently leads FIS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 60. The clearest difference is momentum, while FIS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FIS and IBM?
IBM leads the current stock comparison as International Business Machines Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. vs International Business Machines Corporation
IBM leads
IBM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FIS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support IBM, its lead is widening, 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, 66 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. IBM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while FIS holds the stronger value profile. IBM also shows the stronger 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. IBM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 6 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.
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 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.
- Momentum60 vs 79IBM +19
- Quality49 vs 61IBM +12
- Value75 vs 67FIS +8
- Risk Resilience49 vs 51Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor IBM. IBM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; FIS keeps a meaningful value 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 +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
IBM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
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 momentum and quality.
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
IBMIBM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
IBMIBM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISFIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
IBMIBM on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
IBMIBM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | +29.7% | +4% | FIS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55% | +66.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 14 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FIS | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.71% | 1.52% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.400 | $6.224 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.600 | $6.710 |
| Years increased | 4 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #340 |
FIS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 2.71% a year against IBM's 1.52%. IBM never reduced its regular dividend in the window; FIS did in 1 year.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
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 | IBM | 60 vs 66 |
| 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 -3.5% vs 8.3%; vs 200-day -18.8% vs -3.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 49 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | FIS | Target upside 29.7% vs 4% |
✓ 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20IBM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IBM +6
- 60 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- IBM +7
- 56 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- IBM +1
- 50 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- IBM +8
- 49 vs 57
The lead changed hands 2 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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FIS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only IBM
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.03%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +3.94%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 19 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 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FIS | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.5% | 4.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.2% | 4.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.1% | 17.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.6% | -5.4% |
| Year to date | -45.2% | -18.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -44.6% | -12.3% |
Technicals
IBM has the stronger structure| Metric | FIS | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.1 | 76.1 |
| ADX (14) | 21 | 13.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | 8.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.8% | -3.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.4% | 25.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FIS | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.31 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.76 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.37 | -0.15 |
| Max drawdown | -52.3% | -37.5% |
| Current drawdown | -46.4% | -26.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.6% | 48.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -3.4% |
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 Oct 21, 2026, scoring 66 against FIS's 60. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IBM over FIS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IBM leads Momentum by 19 points; IBM leads Quality by 12 points; FIS leads Value by 8 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 +29.7% upside for FIS and +4% 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?
IBM on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, FIS or IBM?
IBM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IBM 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 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 6 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 2 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 Momentum gap — currently 19 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 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about FIS and IBM?
FIS: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IBM: 2 bullish / 3 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
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.