GIS vs JBS Stock Comparison
Compare GIS and JBS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GIS and JBS?
JBS leads the current stock comparison as Jbs N.V., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
General Mills, Inc. vs Jbs N.V.
JBS leads
JBS leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support JBS, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
General Mills, Inc.
Jbs N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JBS over GIS, 40 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. JBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. JBS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JBS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. JBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare General Mills, Inc. and Jbs N.V. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare GIS and JBS 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 Resilience28 vs 41JBS +13
- Value60 vs 71JBS +11
- Quality17 vs 23JBS +6
- Momentum24 vs 24Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor JBS. JBS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
JBS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GIS and JBS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JBS (Jbs N.V.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
GIS (General Mills, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 35.5% against 24.4%.
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
JBSJBS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GISGIS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JBSJBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
JBSJBS on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
JBSJBS 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 | GIS | JBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.5% | +50.1% | JBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.8% | +31.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JBS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JBS | 33 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | GIS | revenue growth 3.9% vs -78.6%; EPS growth -7.6% vs -109.3%; gross margin 33.4% vs 11.9%; operating margin 20% vs 3.8% |
| Valuation | JBS | Value 60 vs 71 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -5.3% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -9.5% vs -12.9% |
| Risk Resilience | JBS | Risk Resilience 28 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | JBS | Target upside -1.5% vs 50.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GIS and JBS 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.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 JBS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10JBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JBS +7
- 33 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- JBS +4
- 42 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- JBS +10
- 46 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- JBS +11
- 44 vs 55
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.
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.94%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.14%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
JBS 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.31%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.24%, 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.
- 1GIS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to JBS's edge.
- 2GIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JBS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate JBS'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
GIS leads on balance| Metric | GIS | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.9% | -78.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -7.6% | -109.3% |
| Gross margin | 33.4% | 11.9% |
| Operating margin | 20% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -1% | 17.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.84 | 2.97 |
Performance
JBS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GIS | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.7% | -6.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.8% | -3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.3% | 4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -11.6% | -17% |
| Year to date | -22.7% | -12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -28.3% | -19.7% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | GIS | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.4 | 29.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 15.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.3% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.5% | -12.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.5% | 24.4% |
Risk
JBS is the more resilient| Metric | GIS | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.28 | 0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.2 | -0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.82 | -0.93 |
| Max drawdown | -37.1% | -36.9% |
| Current drawdown | -29.6% | -31.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.2% | 33.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GIS or JBS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JBS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 40 against GIS's 33. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 GIS or JBS the better buy right now?
JBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 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 JBS over GIS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JBS leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; JBS leads Value by 11 points; JBS leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GIS or JBS?
Analyst price targets imply -1.5% upside for GIS and +50.1% for JBS, so the Street currently favors JBS. 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, GIS or JBS?
JBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, GIS or JBS?
GIS 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, GIS or JBS?
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, GIS or JBS?
JBS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JBS on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 GIS more profitable than JBS?
GIS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 33.4% vs 11.9%; operating margin 20% vs 3.8%; ttm roe -1% vs 17.7%.
Is JBS's lead over GIS getting stronger or weaker?
JBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GIS vs JBS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GIS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to JBS's edge; GIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; JBS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate JBS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about GIS and JBS?
GIS: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. JBS: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 GIS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JBS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GIS and JBS 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.