FISV vs IBM Stock Comparison
Fiserv, Inc. vs International Business Machines Corporation
FISV and IBM are effectively level
FISV and IBM are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Fiserv, Inc.
International Business Machines Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate FISV and IBM as of Sep 5, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Fiserv, Inc. and International Business Machines Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FISV 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%46 vs 61IBM +15
- Momentum25%59 vs 49FISV +10
- Value30%74 vs 67FISV +7
- Risk Resilience15%49 vs 51Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +12
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
IBM's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FISV and IBM both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
IBMIBM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISVFISV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
FISVFISV on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
IBMIBM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FISVFISV on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | FISV | IBM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.6% | +14.6% | FISV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72.2% | +65% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 58 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | IBMon balance | revenue growth 5.3% vs 7.8%; EPS growth 9.3% vs 76.9%; TTM ROE 10.8% vs 33.5%; gross margin 47.2% vs 58.4%; operating margin 21.4% vs 17.9% — IBM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FISV | Value 74 vs 67 |
| Technicals | FISV | Price vs 50-day 1.6% vs -2.7%; vs 200-day -9.1% vs -10.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 49 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | FISV | Target upside 17.6% vs 14.6% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4IBM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 58 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- FISV +1
- 58 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- IBM +3
- 59 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- IBM +10
- 51 vs 61
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when IBM 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.
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
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
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 up over the latest session (price +0.51%, AIQ +3 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).
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 | FISV | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.3% | 7.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.3% | 76.9% |
| Gross margin | 47.2% | 58.4% |
| Operating margin | 21.4% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.8% | 33.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.04 | 1.89 |
Performance
IBM leads 3 of 5 windows| Metric | FISV | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.1% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.6% | -17.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16% | -9.3% |
| Year to date | -21.1% | -20.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | -3.8% |
Technicals
FISV has the stronger structure| Metric | FISV | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.3 | 56.6 |
| ADX (14) | 7.8 | 8.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | -2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.1% | -10.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.8% | 25.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FISV | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.5 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.53 | 0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | 0.07 |
| Max drawdown | -32.5% | -37.5% |
| Current drawdown | -24.1% | -28.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.3% | 48.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, FISV or IBM?
Analyst price targets imply +17.6% upside for FISV and +14.6% for IBM, so the Street currently favors FISV. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, FISV or IBM?
FISV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FISV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, FISV 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, FISV or IBM?
FISV on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, FISV 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. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FISV more profitable than IBM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 47.2% vs 58.4%; operating margin 21.4% vs 17.9%; ttm roe 10.8% vs 33.5%. FISV leads on one measure and IBM on two measures, 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.
What do the current signals say about FISV and IBM?
FISV: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 FISV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On IBM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FISV 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.