FNLC vs JPM Stock Comparison
FNLC currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 52. The clearest difference is value, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between FNLC and JPM?
FNLC leads the current stock comparison as The First Bancorp, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The First Bancorp, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
FNLC leads
FNLC leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support FNLC, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
The First Bancorp, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNLC over JPM, 56 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. FNLC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. FNLC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor FNLC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. FNLC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The First Bancorp, 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 FNLC 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 Resilience50 vs 68JPM +18
- Value58 vs 44FNLC +14
- Quality57 vs 46FNLC +11
- Momentum57 vs 58Even
3 of 5 evidence groups favor FNLC. FNLC’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; JPM keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
FNLC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FNLC and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNLC (The First Bancorp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
FNLCFNLC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FNLCFNLC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNLCFNLC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | FNLC | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +11.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 0 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FNLC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 3.66% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.220 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.460 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #292 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against FNLC's 3.66%. 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 5 covered evidence groups favor FNLC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FNLC | 56 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth 13.7% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 6.2% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 13.3% vs 17.9%; gross margin 54.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 23.8% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FNLC | Value 58 vs 44 |
| Technicals | FNLC | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day 10.9% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 50 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FNLC and JPM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. (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 FNLC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FNLC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FNLC +4
- 56 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- FNLC +6
- 53 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- FNLC +8
- 51 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FNLC +4
- 57 vs 53
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 20 when FNLC 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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FNLC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that 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 +0.52%, AIQ +2 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 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNLC's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3FNLC'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 4-point move would eliminate FNLC'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
JPM leads on balance| Metric | FNLC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.7% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.2% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 54.4% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 23.8% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.3% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.73 | 3.32 |
Performance
FNLC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FNLC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.4% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.8% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.4% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.8% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 30% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 40.9% | 12.3% |
Technicals
FNLC has the stronger structure| Metric | FNLC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.5 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 29.4 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.9% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.3% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | FNLC | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.16 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.29 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.24 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -10.4% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -3.6% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.5% | 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, FNLC or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FNLC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against JPM's 52. The edge comes from value and quality. JPM is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 FNLC or JPM the better buy right now?
FNLC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FNLC over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; FNLC leads Value by 14 points; FNLC leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FNLC or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for FNLC and +11.3% for 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, FNLC or JPM?
FNLC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FNLC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, FNLC or JPM?
FNLC 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, FNLC or JPM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, FNLC or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 FNLC more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 54.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 23.8% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 13.3% vs 17.9%.
Is FNLC's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
FNLC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 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 2026-07-20, when FNLC moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the FNLC 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 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNLC's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; FNLC'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 4-point move would eliminate FNLC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FNLC and JPM?
FNLC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on FNLC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FNLC 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.