IDCC vs JEF Stock Comparison
IDCC currently leads JEF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 49. The clearest difference is quality, while JEF has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between IDCC and JEF?
IDCC leads the current stock comparison as InterDigital, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
InterDigital, Inc. vs Jefferies Financial Group Inc.
IDCC leads
IDCC leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JEF on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support IDCC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
InterDigital, Inc.
Jefferies Financial Group Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IDCC over JEF, 59 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. IDCC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while JEF holds the stronger momentum profile. IDCC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JEF. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IDCC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. IDCC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare InterDigital, Inc. and Jefferies Financial Group Inc. 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 IDCC and JEF 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.
- Quality82 vs 39IDCC +43
- Momentum42 vs 57JEF +15
- Risk Resilience58 vs 43IDCC +15
- Value50 vs 56JEF +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor IDCC. IDCC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; JEF keeps a meaningful momentum 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 2 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
IDCC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IDCC and JEF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IDCC (InterDigital, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
JEF (Jefferies Financial Group Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation.
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
IDCCIDCC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
IDCCIDCC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JEFJEF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
JEFJEF on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
IDCCIDCC on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
JEFJEF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors IDCC, analyst targets favor JEF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | IDCC | JEF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +36.4% | +41.7% | JEF has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +56.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 6 | 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 | IDCC | JEF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.91% | 21.67% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.400 | $0.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.350 | $1.600 |
| Years increased | 3 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #79 | #11 |
JEF grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 21.67% a year against IDCC's 10.91%. 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 IDCC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IDCC | 59 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | IDCC | revenue growth 26.7% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 53.9% vs 47.2%; TTM ROE 26.8% vs 8.5%; gross margin 78.7% vs 67.9%; operating margin 43.8% vs 7.5% |
| Valuation | JEF | Value 50 vs 56 |
| Technicals | IDCC | Price vs 50-day -6.3% vs -4.9%; vs 200-day 0.9% vs -6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | IDCC | Risk Resilience 58 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | JEF | Target upside 36.4% vs 41.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IDCC and JEF 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.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 IDCC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30IDCC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IDCC +10
- 59 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- IDCC +15
- 59 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- IDCC +19
- 61 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- IDCC +15
- 58 vs 43
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only IDCC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.63%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only JEF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.25%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
IDCC 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 -6.79%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -6.16%, 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.
- 1JEF closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to IDCC's edge.
- 2JEF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IDCC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate IDCC's advantage entirely.
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
IDCC leads on balance| Metric | IDCC | JEF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 26.7% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 53.9% | 47.2% |
| Gross margin | 78.7% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 43.8% | 7.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.8% | 8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | 3.48 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | IDCC | JEF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.2% | 5.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.7% | 3.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.7% | -13.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.1% | 0.1% |
| Year to date | 0.7% | -23.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -13.5% | -16.4% |
Technicals
IDCC has the stronger structure| Metric | IDCC | JEF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.3 | 66.1 |
| ADX (14) | 11.2 | 34.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.3% | -4.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.9% | -6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.1% | 27.7% |
Risk
IDCC is the more resilient| Metric | IDCC | JEF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.34 | 1.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.16 | -0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.22 | -0.34 |
| Max drawdown | -36.8% | -45.6% |
| Current drawdown | -19.2% | -28.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 48% | 39.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IDCC or JEF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IDCC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against JEF's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. JEF is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 IDCC or JEF the better buy right now?
IDCC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IDCC over JEF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IDCC leads Quality by 43 points; JEF leads Momentum by 15 points; IDCC leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IDCC or JEF?
Analyst price targets imply +36.4% upside for IDCC and +41.7% for JEF, so the Street currently favors JEF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors IDCC. 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, IDCC or JEF?
JEF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JEF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, IDCC or JEF?
IDCC 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, IDCC or JEF?
JEF on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, IDCC or JEF?
IDCC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IDCC on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 IDCC more profitable than JEF?
IDCC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 78.7% vs 67.9%; operating margin 43.8% vs 7.5%; ttm roe 26.8% vs 8.5%.
Is IDCC's lead over JEF getting stronger or weaker?
IDCC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the IDCC vs JEF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JEF closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to IDCC's edge; JEF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; IDCC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate IDCC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about IDCC and JEF?
IDCC: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. JEF: 1 bullish / 3 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 IDCC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JEF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare IDCC and JEF 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.