FNF vs JPM Stock Comparison
FNF currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 53. The clearest difference is value, while JPM has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FNF and JPM?
FNF leads the current stock comparison as Fidelity National Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
FNF leads
FNF leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support FNF, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNF over JPM, 60 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. FNF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while JPM holds the stronger momentum profile. FNF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FNF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. FNF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fidelity National Financial, 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 FNF 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.
- Value67 vs 44FNF +23
- Momentum39 vs 61JPM +22
- Quality61 vs 46FNF +15
- Risk Resilience80 vs 69FNF +11
5 of 6 evidence groups favor FNF. FNF’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; JPM keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.8%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
FNF's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FNF and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNF (Fidelity National Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on momentum, 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
FNFFNF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FNFFNF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNFFNF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
FNFFNF on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
FNFFNF 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 | FNF | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +10.7% | FNF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.8% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | 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 | FNF | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.39% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.350 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.020 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #137 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against FNF's 8.39%. 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 FNF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FNF | 60 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | FNFon balance | revenue growth 25.7% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 20% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 10.1% vs 17.9%; gross margin 77.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 13% vs 28.2% — FNF takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FNF | Value 67 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs -2%; vs 200-day -18.3% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | FNF | Risk Resilience 80 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | FNF | Target upside 32.5% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FNF 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 7 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 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 FNF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28FNF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FNF +7
- 60 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- FNF +13
- 63 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- FNF +12
- 56 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- FNF +4
- 56 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when FNF 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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FNF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.01%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.8%)
- 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.
FNF 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.57%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1JPM closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNF's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3FNF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate FNF'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
FNF leads on balance| Metric | FNF | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 25.7% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 20% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 77.9% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 13% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.1% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FNF | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.2% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.7% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -24.5% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -24.9% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | -28% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -31.2% | 12.9% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | FNF | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.2 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 31.6 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.3% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.1% | 13% |
Risk
FNF is the more resilient| Metric | FNF | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.33 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.29 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.87 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -35.1% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -34% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.4% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FNF or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FNF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against JPM's 53. 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 FNF or JPM the better buy right now?
FNF 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FNF over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FNF leads Value by 23 points; JPM leads Momentum by 22 points; FNF leads Quality by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FNF or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for FNF and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors FNF. 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, FNF or JPM?
FNF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FNF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, FNF or JPM?
FNF 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, FNF or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, FNF or JPM?
FNF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FNF on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 FNF more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 77.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 13% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 10.1% vs 17.9%. FNF 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 FNF's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
FNF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when FNF moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the FNF 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 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNF's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; FNF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate FNF's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FNF and JPM?
FNF: 1 bullish / 3 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 FNF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FNF 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.