GOOD vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads GOOD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 41. The clearest difference is momentum, while GOOD has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between GOOD 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
Gladstone Commercial Corporation vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from GOOD.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Gladstone Commercial Corporation
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over GOOD, 52 versus 41 as of Oct 21, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while GOOD holds the stronger value profile. JPM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. JPM lead: Reversed — GOOD led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 11.
Compare Gladstone Commercial 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 GOOD 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.
- Momentum28 vs 58JPM +30
- Quality19 vs 46JPM +27
- Value66 vs 44GOOD +22
- Risk Resilience56 vs 68JPM +12
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; GOOD keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
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 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GOOD 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 quality.
GOOD (Gladstone Commercial Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 22.4% against 14.8%.
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
GOODGOOD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GOODGOOD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 | GOOD | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.8% | +11.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GOOD | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -4.38% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.502 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.200 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 1 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against GOOD's -4.38%. JPM never reduced its regular dividend in the window; GOOD did in 2 years. They are ranked in different cohorts — REITs and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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 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 | 41 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | GOODon balance | revenue growth 5% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 37.5% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 11.7% vs 17.9%; gross margin 15.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 39.1% vs 28.2% — GOOD takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GOOD | Value 66 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -9% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -2.6% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 56 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 11.8% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GOOD 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 11 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 — GOOD led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 11.
- Today
- JPM +11
- 41 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- GOOD +1
- 48 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- GOOD +2
- 45 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +7
- 46 vs 53
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when JPM moved ahead of GOOD.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GOOD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only JPM
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
GOOD 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1GOOD closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2GOOD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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
GOOD leads on balance| Metric | GOOD | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 15.9% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 39.1% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.7% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 5.46 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GOOD | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.6% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.1% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.8% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.6% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 12.4% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.5% | 12.3% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | GOOD | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.6% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.4% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | GOOD | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.19 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -13.9% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 23% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GOOD or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against GOOD's 41. The edge comes from momentum and quality. GOOD 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 GOOD or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over GOOD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Momentum by 30 points; JPM leads Quality by 27 points; GOOD leads Value by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GOOD or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +11.8% upside for GOOD 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, GOOD or JPM?
GOOD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GOOD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, GOOD or JPM?
GOOD 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, GOOD or JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, GOOD or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 GOOD more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 15.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 39.1% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 11.7% vs 17.9%. GOOD 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 GOOD getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Reversed — GOOD led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 11. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when JPM moved ahead of GOOD.
What would change the GOOD vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GOOD closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; GOOD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 GOOD and JPM?
GOOD: 2 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 GOOD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GOOD 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.