GRMN vs JPM Stock Comparison
GRMN currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between GRMN and JPM?
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 JPMorgan Chase & Co.
GRMN leads
GRMN leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GRMN, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Garmin Ltd.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GRMN over JPM, 62 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. GRMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while JPM holds the stronger momentum profile. GRMN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRMN today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. GRMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Garmin Ltd. 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 GRMN 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.
- Quality78 vs 46GRMN +32
- Momentum51 vs 61JPM +10
- Value51 vs 44GRMN +7
- Risk Resilience71 vs 69Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GRMN. GRMN’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; JPM keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -28
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
GRMN's lead narrowed by 9 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GRMN and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GRMN (Garmin Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on momentum.
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
GRMNGRMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GRMNGRMN 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 | GRMN | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.5% | +10.7% | GRMN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.1% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GRMN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.53% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.400 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.450 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #162 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against GRMN's 7.53%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
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 | 62 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | GRMNon balance | revenue growth 15.3% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 33.8% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 21% vs 17.9%; gross margin 60.1% vs 63.2%; operating margin 27.6% vs 28.2% — GRMN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GRMN | Value 51 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -3.7% vs -2%; vs 200-day 7.6% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 71 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | GRMN | Target upside 18.5% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GRMN and JPM 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 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 GRMN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GRMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GRMN +9
- 62 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- GRMN +19
- 69 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- GRMN +18
- 62 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- GRMN +6
- 58 vs 52
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.
3 bullish / 0 bearish
Only GRMN
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
JPM 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.6%, AIQ -8 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.9%, 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.
- 1JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRMN's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3GRMN's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate GRMN'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
GRMN leads on balance| Metric | GRMN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.3% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 33.8% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 60.1% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 27.6% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 3.32 |
Performance
JPM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GRMN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.4% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.7% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 34.3% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.8% | 12.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | GRMN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.8 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.7% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.6% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.9% | 13% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GRMN | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.9 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.33 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.51 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -24.6% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -13% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.9% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GRMN or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GRMN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from quality and value. JPM 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 JPM the better buy right now?
GRMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GRMN leads Quality by 32 points; JPM leads Momentum by 10 points; GRMN leads Value by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GRMN or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +18.5% upside for GRMN and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors GRMN. 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, GRMN or JPM?
GRMN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GRMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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 JPM?
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 JPM?
JPM 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, GRMN or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.1% vs 63.2%; operating margin 27.6% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 21% vs 17.9%. GRMN 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 GRMN's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
GRMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GRMN vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRMN's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; GRMN's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate GRMN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about GRMN and JPM?
GRMN: 3 bullish / 0 bearish. JPM: 2 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 JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GRMN 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.