FN vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads FN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum, while FN has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FN and JPM?
JPM leads the current stock comparison as JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fabrinet vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from FN. Wall Street currently favors FN on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Fabrinet
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over FN, 52 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while FN holds the stronger value profile. JPM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FN. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. JPM lead: Reversed — FN led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6.
Compare Fabrinet 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 FN 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.
- Momentum13 vs 58JPM +45
- Value59 vs 44FN +15
- Risk Resilience54 vs 68JPM +14
- Quality56 vs 46FN +10
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; FN 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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
JPM's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FN and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
FN (Fabrinet): the counter-case, on value, quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 66.9% against 14.8%.
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
JPMJPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FNFN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNFN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 45 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
FNFN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors JPM, analyst targets favor FN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FN | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +102.4% | +11.3% | FN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +5.1% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 11 | 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
3 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 | 46 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | FNon balance | revenue growth 8.4% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 11.5% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 21% vs 17.9%; gross margin 12% vs 63.2%; operating margin 10% vs 28.2% — FN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FN | Value 59 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -18.1% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -31.6% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 54 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | FN | Target upside 102.4% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FN 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 21 – Oct 20JPM lead: Reversed — FN led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6.
- Today
- JPM +6
- 46 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 47 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- FN +15
- 58 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FN +10
- 63 vs 53
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 16 when FN moved ahead of JPM.
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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.87%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.32%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.65%)
- 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.16%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.02%, 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.
- 1FN closes the Momentum gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2FN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JPM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
FN leads on balance| Metric | FN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.5% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 12% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 10% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16.9% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -30.8% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -47.5% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | -17.5% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11% | 12.3% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | FN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.4 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.4 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18.1% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -31.6% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 66.9% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | FN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.98 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -52.4% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -52.4% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 76% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.9% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FN or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 52 against FN's 46. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. FN 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 FN or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over FN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Momentum by 45 points; FN leads Value by 15 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FN or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +102.4% upside for FN and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors FN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors JPM. 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, FN or JPM?
FN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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, FN or JPM?
FN 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, FN or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 45 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, FN or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 FN more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 12% vs 63.2%; operating margin 10% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 21% vs 17.9%. FN leads on one measure and JPM 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 JPM's lead over FN getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Reversed — FN led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-16, when FN moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the FN vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FN closes the Momentum gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; FN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; JPM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 FN and JPM?
FN: 0 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral. JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on FN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FN 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.