GBCI vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads GBCI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 50. The clearest difference is value, while GBCI has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between GBCI and JPM?
JPM leads the current stock comparison as JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Glacier Bancorp, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from GBCI. Wall Street currently favors GBCI on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Glacier Bancorp, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over GBCI, 52 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while GBCI holds the stronger quality profile. JPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GBCI. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. JPM lead: Reversed — GBCI led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 2.
Compare Glacier 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 GBCI 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.
- Quality60 vs 46GBCI +14
- Value34 vs 44JPM +10
- Risk Resilience60 vs 68JPM +8
- Momentum53 vs 58JPM +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; GBCI keeps a meaningful quality 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 +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
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 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GBCI and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
GBCI (Glacier Bancorp, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations.
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
GBCIGBCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
GBCIGBCI 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 GBCI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GBCI | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.5% | +11.3% | GBCI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +10.5% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GBCI | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.27% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.180 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.320 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 2 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against GBCI's 2.27%. 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
4 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 | Even | 50 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth -8.7% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 19% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 7.6% vs 17.9%; gross margin 73.8% vs 63.2%; operating margin 24.7% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 34 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -1.8% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -6.6% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 60 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | GBCI | Target upside 27.5% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GBCI 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JPM lead: Reversed — GBCI led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 2.
- Today
- JPM +2
- 50 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +1
- 46 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- GBCI +1
- 44 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +4
- 49 vs 53
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 22 when GBCI 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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GBCI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.74%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.65%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
GBCI is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.43%, 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.
- 1GBCI closes the Value gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2GBCI'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
JPM leads on balance| Metric | GBCI | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -8.7% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 19% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 73.8% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 24.7% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.6% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.51 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GBCI | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.6% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.8% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.3% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 1% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.2% | 12.3% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | GBCI | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.6 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 32.8 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.8% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.6% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.3% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | GBCI | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.03 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.05 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -18.4% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.6% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GBCI or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against GBCI's 50. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. GBCI is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 GBCI or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over GBCI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GBCI leads Quality by 14 points; JPM leads Value by 10 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GBCI or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +27.5% upside for GBCI and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors GBCI. 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, GBCI or JPM?
JPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, GBCI or JPM?
GBCI 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, GBCI or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, GBCI 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 GBCI more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.8% vs 63.2%; operating margin 24.7% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 7.6% vs 17.9%. GBCI 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 GBCI getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Reversed — GBCI led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-22, when GBCI moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the GBCI vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GBCI closes the Value gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; GBCI'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 GBCI and JPM?
GBCI: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 GBCI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GBCI 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.