GPC vs JBS Stock Comparison
Compare GPC and JBS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GPC and JBS?
GPC leads the current stock comparison as Genuine Parts Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Genuine Parts Company vs Jbs N.V.
GPC leads
GPC leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from JBS. Wall Street currently favors JBS on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GPC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Genuine Parts Company
Jbs N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GPC over JBS, 48 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. GPC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while JBS holds the stronger value profile. GPC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JBS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GPC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. GPC lead: Reversed — JBS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GPC now leads by 8.
Compare Genuine Parts Company 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 GPC 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.
- Momentum62 vs 24GPC +38
- Value55 vs 71JBS +16
- Risk Resilience57 vs 41GPC +16
- Quality25 vs 23Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GPC. GPC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; JBS keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
GPC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GPC and JBS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GPC (Genuine Parts Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
JBS (Jbs N.V.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
GPCGPC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GPCGPC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JBSJBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
GPCGPC on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
GPCGPC on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
JBSJBS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GPC, analyst targets favor JBS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GPC | JBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.5% | +50.1% | JBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.8% | +31.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 3 | 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 GPC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GPC | 48 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | GPC | revenue growth 4.3% vs -78.6%; EPS growth 20.4% vs -109.3%; gross margin 36.2% vs 11.9%; operating margin 4% vs 3.8% |
| Valuation | JBS | Value 55 vs 71 |
| Technicals | GPC | Price vs 50-day 2.6% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day 11.8% vs -12.9% |
| Risk Resilience | GPC | Risk Resilience 57 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | JBS | Target upside 9.5% vs 50.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GPC 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 8 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 GPC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GPC lead: Reversed — JBS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GPC now leads by 8.
- Today
- GPC +8
- 48 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- GPC +5
- 51 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- JBS +4
- 52 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- JBS +3
- 52 vs 55
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when GPC moved ahead of JBS.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.63%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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
GPC 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 -0.36%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1JBS closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to GPC's edge.
- 2JBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GPC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
GPC leads on balance| Metric | GPC | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.3% | -78.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 20.4% | -109.3% |
| Gross margin | 36.2% | 11.9% |
| Operating margin | 4% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0.7% | 17.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.47 | 2.97 |
Performance
GPC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GPC | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.2% | -6.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.1% | -3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 36.3% | 4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.4% | -17% |
| Year to date | 9.1% | -12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.1% | -19.7% |
Technicals
GPC has the stronger structure| Metric | GPC | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.8 | 29.5 |
| ADX (14) | 20.1 | 15.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.6% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.8% | -12.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.9% | 24.4% |
Risk
GPC is the more resilient| Metric | GPC | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.53 | 0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.06 | -0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.09 | -0.93 |
| Max drawdown | -38% | -36.9% |
| Current drawdown | -10.1% | -31.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 33% | 33.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GPC or JBS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GPC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against JBS's 40. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. JBS 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 GPC or JBS the better buy right now?
GPC 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GPC over JBS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GPC leads Momentum by 38 points; JBS leads Value by 16 points; GPC leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GPC or JBS?
Analyst price targets imply +9.5% upside for GPC and +50.1% for JBS, so the Street currently favors JBS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GPC. 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, GPC or JBS?
JBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, GPC or JBS?
GPC 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, GPC or JBS?
GPC on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, GPC or JBS?
GPC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GPC on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 GPC more profitable than JBS?
GPC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 36.2% vs 11.9%; operating margin 4% vs 3.8%; ttm roe 0.7% vs 17.7%.
Is GPC's lead over JBS getting stronger or weaker?
GPC lead: Reversed — JBS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GPC now leads by 8. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when GPC moved ahead of JBS.
What would change the GPC vs JBS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JBS closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to GPC's edge; JBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GPC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 GPC and JBS?
GPC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 GPC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JBS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GPC 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.