FULT vs JPM Stock Comparison
FULT currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 52. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FULT and JPM?
FULT leads the current stock comparison as Fulton Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fulton Financial Corporation vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
FULT leads
FULT leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FULT, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Fulton Financial Corporation
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FULT over JPM, 58 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. FULT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while JPM holds the stronger momentum profile. FULT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FULT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FULT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fulton Financial 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 FULT 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.
- Quality64 vs 46FULT +18
- Value57 vs 44FULT +13
- Momentum49 vs 58JPM +9
- Risk Resilience62 vs 68JPM +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FULT. FULT’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; 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 +15
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.
FULT's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FULT and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FULT (Fulton Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience.
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
FULTFULT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FULTFULT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FULTFULT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 | FULT | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11% | +11.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +16% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FULT | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.02% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.520 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.730 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #191 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against FULT's 7.02%. 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 FULT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FULT | 58 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | FULTon balance | revenue growth 11.6% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 2% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 11.2% vs 17.9%; gross margin 69.3% vs 63.2%; operating margin 25.7% vs 28.2% — FULT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FULT | Value 57 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day 1.9% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 62 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 11% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FULT 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 moderate at 6 points.
- 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 FULT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FULT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FULT +6
- 58 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- FULT +8
- 55 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- FULT +12
- 55 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FULT +8
- 61 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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FULT
- 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.44%, AIQ +4 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 Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to FULT's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3FULT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate FULT'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
FULT leads on balance| Metric | FULT | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.6% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 69.3% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 25.7% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.2% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.45 | 3.32 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FULT | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.7% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.5% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 17.1% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 34.8% | 12.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FULT | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.2 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 34.6 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.9% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.3% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | FULT | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.14 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.78 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -10.2% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.8% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FULT or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FULT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against JPM's 52. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 FULT or JPM the better buy right now?
FULT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 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 FULT over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FULT leads Quality by 18 points; FULT leads Value by 13 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, FULT or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +11% upside for FULT 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, FULT or JPM?
FULT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FULT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, FULT or JPM?
FULT 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, FULT 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, FULT or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 FULT more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 69.3% vs 63.2%; operating margin 25.7% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 11.2% vs 17.9%. FULT 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 FULT's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
FULT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 6 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 FULT vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to FULT's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; FULT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate FULT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FULT and JPM?
FULT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on FULT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FULT 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.