FLO vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads FLO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 48. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while FLO has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FLO and JPM?
JPM leads the current stock comparison as JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Flowers Foods, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from FLO.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Flowers Foods, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over FLO, 53 versus 48 as of Oct 31, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while FLO holds the stronger value profile. JPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. JPM lead: Reversed — FLO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 5.
Compare Flowers Foods, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 FLO and JPM 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.
- Risk Resilience29 vs 69JPM +40
- Value73 vs 44FLO +29
- Momentum46 vs 61JPM +15
- Quality33 vs 46JPM +13
5 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; FLO keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
JPM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FLO and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
FLO (Flowers Foods, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 48.7% against 13%.
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
JPMJPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FLOFLO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FLOFLO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 40 points.
Analyst upside
JPMJPM 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 | FLO | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.3% | +10.7% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FLO | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.46% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.790 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.983 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #270 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against FLO's 4.46%. 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JPM | 48 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth -24.1% vs -7.6%; EPS growth -5% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 4.1% vs 17.9%; gross margin 47.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 5.5% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FLO | Value 73 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day 1% vs -2%; vs 200-day -23.8% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 29 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside -4.3% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FLO and JPM 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28JPM lead: Reversed — FLO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 5.
- Today
- JPM +5
- 48 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +1
- 49 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- FLO +2
- 46 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +6
- 46 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 23 when JPM moved ahead of FLO.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FLO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (29.76%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.94%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
JPM 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 +1.46%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.9%, 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.
- 1FLO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2FLO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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
JPM leads on balance| Metric | FLO | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -24.1% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 47.9% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 5.5% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.1% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.52 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FLO | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.7% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.6% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.8% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | -43.6% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -51% | 12.9% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | FLO | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -23.8% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.7% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | FLO | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.68 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.68 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -55.9% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -51.1% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.4% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FLO or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 53 against FLO's 48. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. FLO 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 FLO or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over FLO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 40 points; FLO leads Value by 29 points; JPM leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FLO or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply -4.3% upside for FLO and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors JPM. 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, FLO or JPM?
FLO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FLO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, FLO or JPM?
FLO 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, FLO or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, FLO or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 40 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 FLO more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 5.5% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 4.1% vs 17.9%.
Is JPM's lead over FLO getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Reversed — FLO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-23, when JPM moved ahead of FLO.
What would change the FLO vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FLO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; FLO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; JPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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 FLO and JPM?
FLO: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. JPM: 2 bullish / 1 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 FLO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FLO and JPM 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.