GPC vs JBS Stock Comparison
GPC currently leads JBS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 42 vs 40. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while JBS has the stronger value profile.
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 risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Genuine Parts Company vs Jbs N.V.
GPC leads
GPC leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from JBS. Wall Street currently favors JBS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 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, 42 versus 40 as of Oct 31, 2026. GPC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while JBS holds the stronger value profile. GPC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JBS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GPC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. GPC lead: Reversed — JBS led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GPC now leads by 2.
Compare Genuine Parts Company and Jbs N.V. 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 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.
- Risk Resilience52 vs 34GPC +18
- Value58 vs 71JBS +13
- Momentum36 vs 26GPC +10
- Quality25 vs 23Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GPC. GPC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; JBS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
GPC's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
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 risk resilience and momentum.
JBS (Jbs N.V.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 41.3% against 32.1%.
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 13 points.
Momentum
GPCGPC on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
GPCGPC on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 | +17.7% | +43.2% | JBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.7% | +16.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GPC | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.45% | 28.54% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.160 | $0.257 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.120 | $0.901 |
| Years increased | 5 | 3 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (2) |
| Cohort rank | #235 | not ranked |
JBS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 28.54% a year against GPC's 5.45%. GPC never reduced its regular dividend in the window; JBS did in 2 years. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — 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 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 | Even | 42 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | GPC | EPS growth -1.2% vs -109.3%; gross margin 36.4% vs 11.9%; operating margin 4% vs 3.8% |
| Valuation | JBS | Value 58 vs 71 |
| Technicals | GPC | Price vs 50-day -7.4% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 1.1% vs -16% |
| Risk Resilience | GPC | Risk Resilience 52 vs 34 |
| Analyst expectations | JBS | Target upside 17.7% vs 43.2% |
✓ 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GPC lead: Reversed — JBS led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GPC now leads by 2.
- Today
- GPC +2
- 42 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- JBS +4
- 42 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- JBS +3
- 42 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- JBS +7
- 52 vs 59
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when JBS moved ahead of GPC.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only GPC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.76%)
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
Only JBS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.29%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.62%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.22%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.71%, 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.
- 1JBS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 18 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 1 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) | -0.2% | -78.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -1.2% | -109.3% |
| Gross margin | 36.4% | 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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GPC | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.7% | -4.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.5% | 5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.8% | -17% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.5% | -24.4% |
| Year to date | -1.3% | -17.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.3% | -6.5% |
Technicals
GPC has the stronger structure| Metric | GPC | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.7 | 31.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.2 | 24.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.4% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.1% | -16% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.1% | 41.3% |
Risk
GPC is the more resilient| Metric | GPC | JBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.49 | 0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.19 | -0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.26 | -0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -38% | -41% |
| Current drawdown | -18.7% | -35.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.8% | 34.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -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 Oct 31, 2026, scoring 42 against JBS's 40. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 GPC over JBS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GPC leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; JBS leads Value by 13 points; GPC leads Momentum by 10 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 +17.7% upside for GPC and +43.2% 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 13 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 10 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 18 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 36.4% 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 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GPC now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when JBS moved ahead of GPC.
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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 18 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 1 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: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. JBS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. 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.