FITB vs KEY Stock Comparison
KEY currently leads FITB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 54. The clearest difference is value, while FITB has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FITB and KEY?
KEY leads the current stock comparison as KeyCorp, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fifth Third Bancorp vs KeyCorp
KEY leads
KEY leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support KEY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fifth Third Bancorp
KeyCorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KEY over FITB, 57 versus 54 as of Oct 22, 2026. KEY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while FITB holds the stronger momentum profile. KEY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KEY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. KEY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fifth Third Bancorp and KeyCorp 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 KEY 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 54KEY +16
- Momentum61 vs 54FITB +7
- Quality59 vs 58Even
- Risk Resilience63 vs 64Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor KEY. KEY’s edge is concentrated in value; FITB keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +17
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
KEY's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FITB and KEY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KEY (KeyCorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
FITB (Fifth Third Bancorp): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals.
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
KEYKEY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FITBFITB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
KEYKEY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
FITBFITB on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
KEYKEY 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 | FITB | KEY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.1% | +21.3% | KEY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.3% | +19.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FITB | KEY |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.35% | 2.07% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.080 | $0.740 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.540 | $0.820 |
| Years increased | 5 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #171 | not ranked |
FITB grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.35% a year against KEY's 2.07%. FITB never reduced its regular dividend in the window; KEY 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KEY. 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 | 54 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | FITBon balance | revenue growth 14.6% vs -24.5%; EPS growth 4.2% vs -2.2%; TTM ROE 8.4% vs 10.1%; gross margin 68.5% vs 64.5%; operating margin 20.1% vs 18.1% — FITB takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | KEY | Value 38 vs 54 |
| Technicals | FITB | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 1.1% vs -3.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 63 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | KEY | Target upside 19.1% vs 21.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FITB and KEY 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 KEY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20KEY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KEY +3
- 54 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- KEY +4
- 47 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- KEY +4
- 45 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- KEY +7
- 54 vs 61
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when KEY moved ahead of FITB.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.79%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only KEY
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.75%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, BB Upper Band Breach, MACD Bullish Crossover.
KEY 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 +1.06%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1FITB closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to KEY's edge.
- 2FITB's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3KEY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
FITB leads on balance| Metric | FITB | KEY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.6% | -24.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.2% | -2.2% |
| Gross margin | 68.5% | 64.5% |
| Operating margin | 20.1% | 18.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.4% | 10.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.65 | 0.74 |
Performance
FITB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FITB | KEY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.4% | 4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | 1.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.1% | -10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.6% | -5.8% |
| Year to date | 12% | 0.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 29.9% | 24% |
Technicals
FITB has the stronger structure| Metric | FITB | KEY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64 | 64.9 |
| ADX (14) | 32.4 | 31.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.1% | -3.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21% | 21.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FITB | KEY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 0.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.39 | 1.23 |
| Max drawdown | -21.2% | -18.6% |
| Current drawdown | -11.7% | -13.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 22.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FITB or KEY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KEY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 57 against FITB's 54. The edge comes from value. FITB is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 KEY the better buy right now?
KEY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor KEY over FITB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KEY leads Value by 16 points; FITB leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FITB or KEY?
Analyst price targets imply +19.1% upside for FITB and +21.3% for KEY, so the Street currently favors KEY. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, FITB or KEY?
KEY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KEY 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 KEY?
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 KEY?
FITB on the Momentum factor, by 7 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 KEY?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. 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 KEY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 68.5% vs 64.5%; operating margin 20.1% vs 18.1%; ttm roe 8.4% vs 10.1%. FITB leads on two measures and KEY 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 KEY's lead over FITB getting stronger or weaker?
KEY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 2026-07-30, when KEY moved ahead of FITB.
What would change the FITB vs KEY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FITB closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to KEY's edge; FITB's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; KEY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 FITB and KEY?
FITB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. KEY: 1 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 FITB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On KEY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FITB and KEY 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.