GRMN vs J Stock Comparison
Compare GRMN and J across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GRMN and J?
GRMN leads the current stock comparison as Garmin Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Garmin Ltd. vs Jacobs Solutions Inc.
GRMN leads
GRMN leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors J on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GRMN, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Garmin Ltd.
Jacobs Solutions Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GRMN over J, 56 versus 48 as of Sep 11, 2026. GRMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while J holds the stronger momentum profile. GRMN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors J. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRMN today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GRMN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Garmin Ltd. and Jacobs Solutions Inc. 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 GRMN and J 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.
- Quality78 vs 31GRMN +47
- Momentum20 vs 42J +22
- Risk Resilience81 vs 59GRMN +22
- Value51 vs 64J +13
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GRMN. GRMN’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; J keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
GRMN's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GRMN and J both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GRMN (Garmin Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
J (Jacobs Solutions Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation.
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
GRMNGRMN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GRMNGRMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JJ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
JJ on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
GRMNGRMN on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
JJ on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GRMN, analyst targets favor J. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GRMN | J | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.2% | +14.1% | J has more room |
| Target dispersion | +44.8% | +15.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 7 | 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 GRMN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GRMN | 56 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | GRMN | revenue growth 15.3% vs 10.3%; EPS growth 33.8% vs 4.4%; TTM ROE 21% vs 9.8%; gross margin 60.1% vs 22.1%; operating margin 27.6% vs 4.6% |
| Valuation | J | Value 51 vs 64 |
| Technicals | GRMN | Price vs 50-day 2.9% vs 1.7%; vs 200-day 13.6% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | GRMN | Risk Resilience 81 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | J | Target upside 4.2% vs 14.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GRMN and J and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 GRMN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GRMN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GRMN +8
- 56 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- GRMN +4
- 58 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- GRMN +5
- 61 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- GRMN +16
- 69 vs 53
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when J moved ahead of GRMN.
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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.69%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.08%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
GRMN 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 +3.85%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.94%, 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.
- 1J closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRMN's edge.
- 2J generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3GRMN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
GRMN leads on balance| Metric | GRMN | J |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.3% | 10.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 33.8% | 4.4% |
| Gross margin | 60.1% | 22.1% |
| Operating margin | 27.6% | 4.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21% | 9.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 1.24 |
Performance
GRMN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GRMN | J |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.4% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.2% | -3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.5% | 15.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.3% | 5.7% |
| Year to date | 34.2% | 6.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.6% | -2.9% |
Technicals
GRMN has the stronger structure| Metric | GRMN | J |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.6 | 32.5 |
| ADX (14) | 25.9 | 35.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.9% | 1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.6% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.4% | 20% |
Risk
GRMN is the more resilient| Metric | GRMN | J |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.97 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | -0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.69 | -0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -28% | -34.8% |
| Current drawdown | -13.1% | -14.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.1% | 33% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GRMN or J?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GRMN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against J's 48. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. J is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 GRMN or J the better buy right now?
GRMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GRMN over J?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GRMN leads Quality by 47 points; J leads Momentum by 22 points; GRMN leads Risk Resilience by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GRMN or J?
Analyst price targets imply +4.2% upside for GRMN and +14.1% for J, so the Street currently favors J. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GRMN. 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, GRMN or J?
J is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. J 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, GRMN or J?
GRMN 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, GRMN or J?
J on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, GRMN or J?
GRMN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GRMN on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 GRMN more profitable than J?
GRMN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.1% vs 22.1%; operating margin 27.6% vs 4.6%; ttm roe 21% vs 9.8%.
Is GRMN's lead over J getting stronger or weaker?
GRMN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when J moved ahead of GRMN.
What would change the GRMN vs J verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: J closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRMN's edge; j generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; GRMN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 GRMN and J?
GRMN: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. J: 3 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 GRMN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On J it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GRMN and J 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.