IBKR vs JJSF Stock Comparison
JJSF currently leads IBKR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 49. The clearest difference is value, while IBKR has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between IBKR and JJSF?
JJSF leads the current stock comparison as J&J Snack Foods Corp., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. vs J&J Snack Foods Corp.
JJSF leads
JJSF leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors IBKR on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support JJSF, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.
J&J Snack Foods Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JJSF over IBKR, 52 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. JJSF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while IBKR holds the stronger quality profile. JJSF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors IBKR. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JJSF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. JJSF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. and J&J Snack Foods Corp. 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 IBKR 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.
- Quality72 vs 46IBKR +26
- Value24 vs 47JJSF +23
- Momentum43 vs 60JJSF +17
- Risk Resilience66 vs 64Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor JJSF. JJSF’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; IBKR keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
JJSF's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IBKR and JJSF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JJSF (J&J Snack Foods Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
IBKR (Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 31.6% against 22.5%.
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
JJSFJJSF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
JJSFJJSF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JJSFJJSF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
JJSFJJSF on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
JJSFJJSF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
IBKRIBKR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors JJSF, analyst targets favor IBKR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | IBKR | JJSF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +24.7% | +23.5% | IBKR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +17.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | IBKR | JJSF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 24.78% | 6.56% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.100 | $2.300 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.303 | $3.160 |
| Years increased | 2 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #200 |
IBKR grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 24.78% a year against JJSF's 6.56%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JJSF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 49 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | IBKRon balance | revenue growth 8.1% vs 23.5%; EPS growth -1.4% vs 20.3%; TTM ROE 11.7% vs 5.4%; gross margin 94.6% vs 31.1%; operating margin 87% vs 4.6% — IBKR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JJSF | Value 24 vs 47 |
| Technicals | JJSF | Price vs 50-day -5.1% vs -1.5%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs 0% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 66 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | IBKR | Target upside 24.7% vs 23.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IBKR and JJSF 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 JJSF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JJSF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JJSF +3
- 49 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- JJSF +8
- 42 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- JJSF +3
- 41 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JJSF +6
- 49 vs 55
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 7 when JJSF moved ahead of IBKR.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IBKR
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.52%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only JJSF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
IBKR 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 +2.92%, AIQ +3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.09%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1IBKR closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to JJSF's edge.
- 2IBKR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3JJSF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
IBKR leads on balance| Metric | IBKR | JJSF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | 23.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -1.4% | 20.3% |
| Gross margin | 94.6% | 31.1% |
| Operating margin | 87% | 4.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.7% | 5.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.22 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | IBKR | JJSF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.2% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.8% | 3.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10% | 5.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.1% | 0.5% |
| Year to date | 28.9% | -9.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21% | -12.8% |
Technicals
JJSF has the stronger structure| Metric | IBKR | JJSF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.4 | 69.9 |
| ADX (14) | 20.1 | 12.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.1% | -1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | 0% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.6% | 22.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IBKR | JJSF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.05 | -0.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.67 | -0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.16 | -0.38 |
| Max drawdown | -18.8% | -29% |
| Current drawdown | -15.6% | -16.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.4% | 34.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IBKR or JJSF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JJSF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against IBKR's 49. The edge comes from value and momentum. IBKR is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 IBKR or JJSF the better buy right now?
JJSF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JJSF over IBKR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IBKR leads Quality by 26 points; JJSF leads Value by 23 points; JJSF leads Momentum by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IBKR or JJSF?
Analyst price targets imply +24.7% upside for IBKR and +23.5% for JJSF, so the Street currently favors IBKR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors JJSF. 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, IBKR or JJSF?
JJSF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JJSF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, IBKR 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, IBKR or JJSF?
JJSF on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, IBKR or JJSF?
JJSF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JJSF 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 IBKR more profitable than JJSF?
IBKR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 94.6% vs 31.1%; operating margin 87% vs 4.6%; ttm roe 11.7% vs 5.4%.
Is JJSF's lead over IBKR getting stronger or weaker?
JJSF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-07, when JJSF moved ahead of IBKR.
What would change the IBKR vs JJSF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IBKR closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to JJSF's edge; IBKR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; JJSF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 IBKR and JJSF?
IBKR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. JJSF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 IBKR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JJSF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IBKR and JJSF 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.