GFS vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads GFS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum, while GFS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between GFS and JPM?
JPM leads the current stock comparison as JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from GFS. Wall Street currently favors GFS on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over GFS, 53 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while GFS holds the stronger value profile. JPM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GFS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. JPM lead: Reversed — GFS led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6.
Compare GLOBALFOUNDRIES 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 GFS 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.
- Momentum33 vs 61JPM +28
- Risk Resilience42 vs 69JPM +27
- Value63 vs 44GFS +19
- Quality46 vs 46Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; GFS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
JPM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GFS and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
GFS (GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 51.7% against 13%.
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
GFSGFS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GFSGFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
GFSGFS 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 GFS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GFS | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +88.4% | +10.7% | GFS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +112.7% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 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.
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 | JPM | 47 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth 9.3% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 57.9% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 6.1% vs 17.9%; gross margin 27.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 11.6% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GFS | Value 63 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -10.2% vs -2%; vs 200-day -16.4% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 42 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | GFS | Target upside 88.4% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GFS 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 6 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30JPM lead: Reversed — GFS led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6.
- Today
- JPM +6
- 47 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +4
- 46 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- GFS +9
- 53 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +6
- 45 vs 51
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when JPM moved ahead of GFS.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
Only GFS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (18.24%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.21%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short 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
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
JPM 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -8.62%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.9%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1GFS closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2GFS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | GFS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.3% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 57.9% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 27.4% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 11.6% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.1% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GFS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.8% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.6% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.5% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 32% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.5% | 12.9% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | GFS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.9 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 12.2 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.2% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.4% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.7% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | GFS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.2 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.15 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -52.5% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -48.7% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 60.5% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GFS or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 53 against GFS's 47. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. GFS is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 GFS or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over GFS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Momentum by 28 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; GFS leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GFS or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +88.4% upside for GFS and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors GFS. 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, GFS or JPM?
GFS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, GFS or JPM?
GFS 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, GFS or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 28 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, GFS or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 GFS more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 11.6% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 6.1% vs 17.9%.
Is JPM's lead over GFS getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Reversed — GFS led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-22, when JPM moved ahead of GFS.
What would change the GFS vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GFS closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; GFS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; JPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 GFS and JPM?
GFS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 GFS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GFS 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.