ISRG vs JPM Stock Comparison
ISRG currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between ISRG and JPM?
ISRG leads the current stock comparison as Intuitive Surgical, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
ISRG leads
ISRG leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ISRG, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ISRG over JPM, 60 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. ISRG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while JPM holds the stronger value profile. ISRG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ISRG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ISRG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intuitive Surgical, 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 ISRG 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.
- Quality77 vs 46ISRG +31
- Value24 vs 44JPM +20
- Momentum80 vs 61ISRG +19
- Risk Resilience68 vs 69Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ISRG. ISRG’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; JPM keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
ISRG's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ISRG and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ISRG (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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
ISRGISRG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ISRGISRG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
ISRGISRG on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ISRGISRG 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 | ISRG | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.7% | +10.7% | ISRG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +63.1% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ISRG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ISRG | 60 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 5.4% vs -7.6%; EPS growth -35.3% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 17% vs 17.9%; gross margin 67.2% vs 63.2%; operating margin 28.4% vs 28.2% |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 24 vs 44 |
| Technicals | ISRG | Price vs 50-day 8.2% vs -2%; vs 200-day 2.3% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 68 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | ISRG | Target upside 14.7% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ISRG 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 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 ISRG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ISRG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ISRG +7
- 60 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- ISRG +12
- 62 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- ISRG +16
- 60 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +3
- 49 vs 52
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when ISRG 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ISRG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.72%)
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
ISRG 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -3.73%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.9%, AIQ +1 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 Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to ISRG's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ISRG'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 7-point move would eliminate ISRG'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
Split| Metric | ISRG | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.4% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -35.3% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 67.2% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 28.4% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 3.32 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ISRG | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.8% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.2% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 25.8% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.1% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | -21.6% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.7% | 12.9% |
Technicals
ISRG has the stronger structure| Metric | ISRG | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.6 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 14.3 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.2% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.3% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.3% | 13% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ISRG | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.55 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.7 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -44% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -25.1% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 34% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ISRG or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ISRG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from quality and momentum. JPM is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 ISRG or JPM the better buy right now?
ISRG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 ISRG over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ISRG leads Quality by 31 points; JPM leads Value by 20 points; ISRG leads Momentum by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ISRG or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +14.7% upside for ISRG and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors ISRG. 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, ISRG or JPM?
JPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, ISRG or JPM?
ISRG 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, ISRG or JPM?
ISRG on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, ISRG or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM 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 ISRG more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67.2% vs 63.2%; operating margin 28.4% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 17% vs 17.9%. 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 ISRG's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
ISRG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when ISRG moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the ISRG vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to ISRG's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ISRG'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 7-point move would eliminate ISRG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ISRG and JPM?
ISRG: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. JPM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 ISRG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ISRG 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.