FITB vs GS Stock Comparison
FITB currently leads GS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 50. The clearest difference is momentum, while GS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FITB and GS?
FITB leads the current stock comparison as Fifth Third Bancorp, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fifth Third Bancorp vs The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
FITB leads
FITB leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FITB, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fifth Third Bancorp
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FITB over GS, 54 versus 50 as of Oct 22, 2026. FITB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while GS holds the stronger value profile. FITB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FITB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. FITB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fifth Third Bancorp and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 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 FITB and GS 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.
- Value38 vs 54GS +16
- Momentum61 vs 45FITB +16
- Quality59 vs 44FITB +15
- Risk Resilience63 vs 64Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FITB. FITB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; GS 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +23
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
FITB's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FITB and GS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FITB (Fifth Third Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
GS (The Goldman Sachs Group, 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
FITBFITB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FITBFITB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GSGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
FITBFITB on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
GSGS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GSGS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FITB, analyst targets favor GS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FITB | GS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.1% | +23.2% | GS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.3% | +38.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 8 | 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 | FITB | GS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.35% | 22.87% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.080 | $5.000 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.540 | $14.000 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #171 | #8 |
GS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 22.87% a year against FITB's 7.35%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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 FITB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FITB | 54 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | FITBon balance | revenue growth 14.6% vs -1.9%; EPS growth 4.2% vs -18.9%; TTM ROE 8.4% vs 17.9%; gross margin 68.5% vs 57.5%; operating margin 20.1% vs 25% — FITB takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GS | Value 38 vs 54 |
| Technicals | FITB | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 1.1% vs -7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 63 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | GS | Target upside 19.1% vs 23.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FITB and GS 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 FITB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FITB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FITB +4
- 54 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- FITB +3
- 47 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- FITB +8
- 45 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- FITB +6
- 54 vs 48
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when FITB moved ahead of GS.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FITB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
FITB 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 up over the latest session (price +0.76%, AIQ +6 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.25%, 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.
- 1GS closes the Momentum gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to FITB's edge.
- 2GS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3FITB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate FITB's advantage entirely.
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
FITB leads on balance| Metric | FITB | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.6% | -1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.2% | -18.9% |
| Gross margin | 68.5% | 57.5% |
| Operating margin | 20.1% | 25% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.4% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.65 | 6.71 |
Performance
FITB leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FITB | GS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.4% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.1% | -19.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.6% | -4.5% |
| Year to date | 12% | 0.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 29.9% | 16.7% |
Technicals
FITB has the stronger structure| Metric | FITB | GS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64 | 42.5 |
| ADX (14) | 32.4 | 32.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.1% | -7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21% | 17.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FITB | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | 0.55 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.39 | 0.85 |
| Max drawdown | -21.2% | -24% |
| Current drawdown | -11.7% | -23.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 32% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FITB or GS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FITB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 54 against GS's 50. The edge comes from momentum and quality. GS 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 FITB or GS the better buy right now?
FITB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FITB over GS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GS leads Value by 16 points; FITB leads Momentum by 16 points; FITB leads Quality by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FITB or GS?
Analyst price targets imply +19.1% upside for FITB and +23.2% for GS, so the Street currently favors GS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FITB. 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, FITB or GS?
GS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, FITB or GS?
FITB 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, FITB or GS?
FITB on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, FITB or GS?
GS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GS 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 FITB more profitable than GS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 68.5% vs 57.5%; operating margin 20.1% vs 25%; ttm roe 8.4% vs 17.9%. FITB leads on one measure and GS 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.
Is FITB's lead over GS getting stronger or weaker?
FITB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when FITB moved ahead of GS.
What would change the FITB vs GS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GS closes the Momentum gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to FITB's edge; GS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; FITB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate FITB's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FITB and GS?
FITB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 FITB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FITB and GS 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.