GWW vs JPM Stock Comparison
GWW currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 72 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between GWW and JPM?
GWW leads the current stock comparison as W.W. Grainger, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
W.W. Grainger, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
GWW leads
GWW leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors JPM on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GWW, and its current signal state is conflicted.
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GWW over JPM, 72 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. GWW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. GWW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JPM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GWW today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GWW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare W.W. Grainger, Inc. 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 GWW 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 46GWW +32
- Momentum89 vs 61GWW +28
- Risk Resilience79 vs 69GWW +10
- Value47 vs 44Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GWW. GWW’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 -6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
GWW's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GWW and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GWW (W.W. Grainger, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on 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
GWWGWW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GWWGWW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
GWWGWW on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
GWWGWW on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
JPMJPM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GWW, analyst targets favor JPM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GWW | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.9% | +10.7% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.5% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 11 | 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 | GWW | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.25% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $5.940 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $8.830 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #139 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against GWW's 8.25%. 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 GWW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GWW | 72 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | GWWon balance | revenue growth 5.9% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 2% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 48.7% vs 17.9%; gross margin 39.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 14.6% vs 28.2% — GWW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 47 vs 44 |
| Technicals | GWW | Price vs 50-day 4.7% vs -2%; vs 200-day 8.7% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | GWW | Risk Resilience 79 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside -3.9% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GWW 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 wide at 19 points. (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 GWW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GWW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GWW +19
- 72 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- GWW +23
- 73 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- GWW +20
- 64 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- GWW +15
- 67 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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only GWW
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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.
GWW 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 -0.93%, AIQ -1 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 GWW's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3GWW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
GWW leads on balance| Metric | GWW | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.9% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 39.4% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 14.6% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 48.7% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 3.32 |
Performance
GWW leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GWW | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.6% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.1% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 32.9% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 38.4% | 12.9% |
Technicals
GWW has the stronger structure| Metric | GWW | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.7 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 17.4 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.7% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.7% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.7% | 13% |
Risk
GWW is the more resilient| Metric | GWW | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.5 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.37 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.11 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.4% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GWW or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GWW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 72 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 GWW or JPM the better buy right now?
GWW 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 GWW over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GWW leads Quality by 32 points; GWW leads Momentum by 28 points; GWW leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GWW or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply -3.9% upside for GWW and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors JPM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GWW. 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, GWW or JPM?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, GWW or JPM?
GWW 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, GWW or JPM?
GWW on the Momentum factor, by 28 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, GWW or JPM?
GWW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GWW on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 GWW more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 39.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 14.6% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 48.7% vs 17.9%. GWW 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 GWW's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
GWW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 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 GWW 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 GWW's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; GWW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 GWW and JPM?
GWW: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. 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 GWW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GWW 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.