HAFC vs JJSF Stock Comparison
Hanmi Financial Corporation vs J&J Snack Foods Corp.
HAFC leads
HAFC leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JJSF on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support HAFC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Hanmi Financial Corporation
J&J Snack Foods Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HAFC over JJSF, 61 versus 50 as of Sep 5, 2026. HAFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. HAFC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JJSF. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAFC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. HAFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hanmi Financial Corporation and J&J Snack Foods Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare HAFC and JJSF 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.
- Quality30%64 vs 46HAFC +18
- Value30%58 vs 48HAFC +10
- Momentum25%60 vs 51HAFC +9
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 61Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor HAFC. HAFC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +20
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
HAFC's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HAFC and JJSF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HAFC (Hanmi Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
JJSF (J&J Snack Foods Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 24.8% against 16.2%.
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
HAFCHAFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
JJSFJJSF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HAFCHAFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
HAFCHAFC on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
HAFCHAFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
JJSFJJSF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HAFC, analyst targets favor JJSF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HAFC | JJSF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5% | +20.1% | JJSF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +8.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 1 | 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 HAFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HAFC | 61 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | HAFCon balance | revenue growth -45.6% vs 23.5%; EPS growth 2.6% vs 20.3%; TTM ROE 11.2% vs 5.4%; gross margin 56.4% vs 31.1%; operating margin 17.3% vs 4.6% — HAFC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HAFC | Value 58 vs 48 |
| Technicals | HAFC | Price vs 50-day 0.4% vs 2.4%; vs 200-day 10% vs 0.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | JJSF | Target upside 5% vs 20.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HAFC and JJSF and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 HAFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4HAFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HAFC +11
- 61 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- HAFC +6
- 56 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- HAFC +8
- 64 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- HAFC +20
- 65 vs 45
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when HAFC moved ahead of JJSF.
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 / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.54%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.87%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
JJSF 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 up over the latest session (price +0.69%, AIQ +5 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.15%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1JJSF closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAFC's edge.
- 2JJSF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3HAFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
HAFC leads on balance| Metric | HAFC | JJSF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -45.6% | 23.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.6% | 20.3% |
| Gross margin | 56.4% | 31.1% |
| Operating margin | 17.3% | 4.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.2% | 5.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 0.22 |
Performance
HAFC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | HAFC | JJSF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3% | -5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | -8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.4% | 11.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 24.5% | -2.5% |
| Year to date | 18.6% | -6.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.9% | -22.7% |
Technicals
HAFC has the stronger structure| Metric | HAFC | JJSF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.8 | 40.5 |
| ADX (14) | 14.8 | 19.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.4% | 2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10% | 0.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 24.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | HAFC | JJSF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | -0.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | -0.67 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | -0.83 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -35.9% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -22.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.4% | 34.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HAFC or JJSF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HAFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 against JJSF's 50. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 HAFC or JJSF the better buy right now?
HAFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HAFC over JJSF?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. HAFC leads Quality by 18 points; HAFC leads Value by 10 points; HAFC leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HAFC or JJSF?
Analyst price targets imply +5% upside for HAFC and +20.1% for JJSF, so the Street currently favors JJSF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HAFC. 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, HAFC or JJSF?
HAFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HAFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, HAFC or JJSF?
JJSF 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, HAFC or JJSF?
HAFC on the Momentum factor, by 9 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, HAFC or JJSF?
HAFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HAFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is HAFC more profitable than JJSF?
HAFC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56.4% vs 31.1%; operating margin 17.3% vs 4.6%; ttm roe 11.2% vs 5.4%.
Is HAFC's lead over JJSF getting stronger or weaker?
HAFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when HAFC moved ahead of JJSF.
What would change the HAFC vs JJSF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JJSF closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAFC's edge; JJSF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; HAFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about HAFC and JJSF?
HAFC: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. JJSF: 1 bullish / 2 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 HAFC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JJSF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare HAFC and JJSF with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.