ICE vs JLL Stock Comparison
JLL currently leads ICE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 70 vs 49. The clearest difference is value, while ICE has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ICE and JLL?
JLL leads the current stock comparison as Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. vs Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated
JLL leads
JLL leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support JLL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JLL over ICE, 70 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. JLL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while ICE holds the stronger risk resilience profile. JLL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JLL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. JLL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated 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 ICE and JLL 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.
- Value28 vs 68JLL +40
- Momentum49 vs 87JLL +38
- Risk Resilience65 vs 47ICE +18
- Quality63 vs 69JLL +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor JLL. JLL’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; ICE keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
JLL's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ICE and JLL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JLL (Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
ICE (Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
JLLJLL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
JLLJLL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JLLJLL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 points.
Momentum
JLLJLL on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
ICEICE on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
JLLJLL 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 | ICE | JLL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.7% | +13.6% | JLL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.1% | +32.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JLL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JLL | 49 vs 70 |
| Fundamentals | JLLon balance | revenue growth -1.5% vs 8.5%; EPS growth -31.7% vs 37.5%; TTM ROE 13.8% vs 13.6%; gross margin 73.4% vs 89.6%; operating margin 44.9% vs 4.8% — JLL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JLL | Value 28 vs 68 |
| Technicals | JLL | Price vs 50-day 7.4% vs 8.1%; vs 200-day 0.9% vs 2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ICE | Risk Resilience 65 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | JLL | Target upside 8.7% vs 13.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ICE and JLL 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 wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 JLL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30JLL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JLL +21
- 49 vs 70
- 7 sessions ago
- JLL +3
- 58 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- JLL +1
- 54 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- JLL +6
- 59 vs 65
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when JLL moved ahead of ICE.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ICE
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only JLL
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.57%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
JLL 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 +3.56%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.79%, 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.
- 1ICE closes the Value gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to JLL's edge.
- 2ICE's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3JLL'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
JLL leads on balance| Metric | ICE | JLL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.5% | 8.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -31.7% | 37.5% |
| Gross margin | 73.4% | 89.6% |
| Operating margin | 44.9% | 4.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.8% | 13.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.69 | 0.34 |
Performance
JLL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ICE | JLL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | 8.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | 9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | -7.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.1% | -1.6% |
| Year to date | -3.7% | -0.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.1% | 5.2% |
Technicals
JLL has the stronger structure| Metric | ICE | JLL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51 | 66 |
| ADX (14) | 14.3 | 28.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | 8.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.9% | 2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.3% | 50.4% |
Risk
ICE is the more resilient| Metric | ICE | JLL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.17 | 0.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.06 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.08 | 0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -29.8% | -24.8% |
| Current drawdown | -10.9% | -15.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.5% | 37.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ICE or JLL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JLL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 70 against ICE's 49. The edge comes from value and momentum. ICE 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 ICE or JLL the better buy right now?
JLL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 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 JLL over ICE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JLL leads Value by 40 points; JLL leads Momentum by 38 points; ICE leads Risk Resilience by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ICE or JLL?
Analyst price targets imply +8.7% upside for ICE and +13.6% for JLL, so the Street currently favors JLL. 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, ICE or JLL?
JLL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JLL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 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, ICE or JLL?
JLL 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, ICE or JLL?
JLL on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, ICE or JLL?
ICE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ICE on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 ICE more profitable than JLL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.4% vs 89.6%; operating margin 44.9% vs 4.8%; ttm roe 13.8% vs 13.6%. Each name leads 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 JLL's lead over ICE getting stronger or weaker?
JLL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 21 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when JLL moved ahead of ICE.
What would change the ICE vs JLL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ICE closes the Value gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to JLL's edge; ICE's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; JLL'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 ICE and JLL?
ICE: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. JLL: 4 bullish / 1 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 ICE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JLL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ICE and JLL 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.