FISV vs INFY Stock Comparison
INFY currently leads FISV in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 69 vs 59. The clearest difference is quality, while FISV has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between FISV and INFY?
INFY leads the current stock comparison as Infosys Limited, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fiserv, Inc. vs Infosys Limited
INFY leads
INFY leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors FISV on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support INFY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fiserv, Inc.
Infosys Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors INFY over FISV, 69 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. INFY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while FISV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. INFY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FISV. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INFY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. INFY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fiserv, Inc. and Infosys Limited 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 FISV and INFY 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.
- Quality46 vs 75INFY +29
- Momentum58 vs 72INFY +14
- Risk Resilience58 vs 48FISV +10
- Value74 vs 71Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor INFY. INFY’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; FISV keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
INFY's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FISV and INFY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
INFY (Infosys Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
FISV (Fiserv, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, 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
INFYINFY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FISVFISV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
INFYINFY on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
FISVFISV on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
FISVFISV on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors INFY, analyst targets favor FISV. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FISV | INFY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.8% | -6% | FISV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +73.6% | +38.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 6 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INFY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | INFY | 59 vs 69 |
| Fundamentals | FISVon balance | EPS growth 9.3% vs -13%; TTM ROE 10.8% vs 33%; gross margin 47.2% vs 30.3%; operating margin 21.4% vs 20.4% — FISV takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 74 vs 71 |
| Technicals | INFY | Price vs 50-day -2.1% vs 11.5%; vs 200-day -13% vs -6.6% |
| Risk Resilience | FISV | Risk Resilience 58 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | FISV | Target upside 26.8% vs -6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FISV and INFY 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 10 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 INFY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20INFY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- INFY +10
- 59 vs 69
- 7 sessions ago
- INFY +13
- 56 vs 69
- 30 sessions ago
- INFY +11
- 50 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- INFY +7
- 55 vs 62
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 FISV
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INFY
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, BB Upper Band Breach, MACD Bullish Crossover.
INFY 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 -0.08%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.71%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1FISV closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to INFY's edge.
- 2FISV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3INFY'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
FISV leads on balance| Metric | FISV | INFY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.3% | 0.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.3% | -13% |
| Gross margin | 47.2% | 30.3% |
| Operating margin | 21.4% | 20.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.8% | 33% |
| Debt to equity | 1.04 | 0.1 |
Performance
INFY leads 4 of 5 windows| Metric | FISV | INFY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.4% | 11.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.7% | 15.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.9% | 14.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.7% | -10% |
| Year to date | -28.2% | -29% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | -21.3% |
Technicals
INFY has the stronger structure| Metric | FISV | INFY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.9 | 76.5 |
| ADX (14) | 17.1 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.1% | 11.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -13% | -6.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.5% | 39.9% |
Risk
FISV is the more resilient| Metric | FISV | INFY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | 0.39 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.73 | -0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.02 | -0.78 |
| Max drawdown | -36.5% | -48.1% |
| Current drawdown | -30.9% | -37.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.6% | 41.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FISV or INFY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, INFY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 69 against FISV's 59. The edge comes from quality and momentum. FISV is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 FISV or INFY the better buy right now?
INFY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor INFY over FISV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. INFY leads Quality by 29 points; INFY leads Momentum by 14 points; FISV leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FISV or INFY?
Analyst price targets imply +26.8% upside for FISV and -6% for INFY, so the Street currently favors FISV. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors INFY. 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, FISV or INFY?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 INFY?
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, FISV or INFY?
INFY on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, FISV or INFY?
FISV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FISV on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 FISV more profitable than INFY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 47.2% vs 30.3%; operating margin 21.4% vs 20.4%; ttm roe 10.8% vs 33%. FISV leads on two measures and INFY 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 INFY's lead over FISV getting stronger or weaker?
INFY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FISV vs INFY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FISV closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to INFY's edge; FISV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; INFY'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 FISV and INFY?
FISV: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. INFY: 2 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 FISV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INFY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FISV and INFY 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.