HAS vs JPM Stock Comparison
HAS currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 52. The clearest difference is momentum, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between HAS and JPM?
HAS leads the current stock comparison as Hasbro, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Hasbro, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
HAS leads
HAS leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors JPM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HAS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Hasbro, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HAS over JPM, 62 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. HAS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. HAS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JPM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. HAS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hasbro, 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 HAS 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.
- Momentum84 vs 58HAS +26
- Risk Resilience42 vs 68JPM +26
- Quality70 vs 46HAS +24
- Value44 vs 44Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HAS. HAS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; JPM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -10, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
HAS's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HAS and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HAS (Hasbro, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
HASHAS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HASHAS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
HASHAS on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 HAS, analyst targets favor JPM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HAS | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -7.7% | +11.3% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.1% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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 | HAS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 0.58% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.720 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.800 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 2 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #347 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against HAS's 0.58%. 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HAS | 62 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | HASon balance | revenue growth 13.9% vs -7.6%; EPS growth -19.9% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 138.4% vs 17.9%; gross margin 70.3% vs 63.2%; operating margin 23.9% vs 28.2% — HAS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 44 vs 44 |
| Technicals | HAS | Price vs 50-day 22.9% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day 13.4% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 42 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside -7.7% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HAS and JPM 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 moderate at 10 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 HAS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20HAS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HAS +10
- 62 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- HAS +15
- 62 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- HAS +9
- 52 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- HAS +3
- 56 vs 53
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when HAS moved ahead of JPM.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only HAS
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
HAS 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 +4.09%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.02%, 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.
- 1JPM closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAS's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3HAS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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
HAS leads on balance| Metric | HAS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.9% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -19.9% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 70.3% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 23.9% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 138.4% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 5.06 | 3.32 |
Performance
HAS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | HAS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 10.6% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 20.4% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.3% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 24.9% | 4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 40.8% | 12.3% |
Technicals
HAS has the stronger structure| Metric | HAS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84.1 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 32.2 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 22.9% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.4% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.4% | 14.8% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | HAS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.22 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.24 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -28.4% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.3% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HAS or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HAS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against JPM's 52. The edge comes from momentum and quality. JPM is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 HAS or JPM the better buy right now?
HAS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HAS over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HAS leads Momentum by 26 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; HAS leads Quality by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HAS or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply -7.7% upside for HAS and +11.3% for JPM, so the Street currently favors JPM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HAS. 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, HAS 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, HAS or JPM?
HAS 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, HAS or JPM?
HAS on the Momentum factor, by 26 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, HAS or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 HAS more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 70.3% vs 63.2%; operating margin 23.9% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 138.4% vs 17.9%. HAS leads on two measures and JPM on one measure, 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 HAS's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
HAS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when HAS moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the HAS vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAS's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; HAS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 HAS and JPM?
HAS: 6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 HAS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HAS 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.