FNB vs JPM Stock Comparison
FNB currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 52. The clearest difference is value, while JPM has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FNB and JPM?
FNB leads the current stock comparison as F.N.B. Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
F.N.B. Corporation vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
FNB leads
FNB leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FNB, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
F.N.B. Corporation
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNB over JPM, 55 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. FNB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while JPM holds the stronger momentum profile. FNB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FNB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. FNB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare F.N.B. Corporation 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 FNB 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.
- Value56 vs 44FNB +12
- Quality57 vs 46FNB +11
- Momentum49 vs 58JPM +9
- Risk Resilience60 vs 68JPM +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FNB. FNB’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; JPM 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 +14
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
FNB's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FNB and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNB (F.N.B. Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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
FNBFNB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FNBFNB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNBFNB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
FNBFNB 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 | FNB | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.3% | +11.3% | FNB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.5% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FNB | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 0.00% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.480 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.480 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 0 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #349 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against FNB's 0.00%. 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 FNB. 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 | 55 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | FNBon balance | revenue growth 2.2% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 10.5% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 8.9% vs 17.9%; gross margin 64.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 26.5% vs 28.2% — FNB takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FNB | Value 56 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -1.1% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -1.1% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 60 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | FNB | Target upside 16.3% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FNB 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 3 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 FNB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FNB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FNB +3
- 55 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- FNB +5
- 52 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- FNB +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FNB +9
- 62 vs 53
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.
FNB and JPM carry the same 2 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 +0.79%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1JPM closes the Value gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNB's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3FNB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate FNB'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
FNB leads on balance| Metric | FNB | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.2% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10.5% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 64.4% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 26.5% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.9% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.73 | 3.32 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FNB | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.6% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.4% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.1% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 3.3% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.5% | 12.3% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | FNB | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.4 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 31.5 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.1% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.1% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.2% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | FNB | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.63 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.9 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -16.3% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.8% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FNB or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FNB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 55 against JPM's 52. The edge comes from value and quality. JPM 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 FNB or JPM the better buy right now?
FNB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FNB over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FNB leads Value by 12 points; FNB leads Quality by 11 points; JPM leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FNB or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +16.3% upside for FNB and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors FNB. 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, FNB or JPM?
FNB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FNB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, FNB or JPM?
FNB 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, FNB or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, FNB or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 FNB more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 64.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 26.5% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 8.9% vs 17.9%. FNB 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 FNB's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
FNB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 3 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 FNB vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Value gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNB's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; FNB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate FNB's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FNB and JPM?
FNB: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on FNB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FNB 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.