ITW vs JCI Stock Comparison
Compare ITW and JCI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ITW and JCI?
JCI leads the current stock comparison as Johnson Controls International plc, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Illinois Tool Works Inc. vs Johnson Controls International plc
JCI leads
JCI leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from ITW.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JCI, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
Johnson Controls International plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JCI over ITW, 51 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. JCI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while ITW holds the stronger value profile. JCI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JCI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. JCI lead: Reversed — ITW led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JCI now leads by 5.
Compare Illinois Tool Works Inc. and Johnson Controls International plc across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ITW and JCI 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.
- Momentum18 vs 48JCI +30
- Value46 vs 37ITW +9
- Risk Resilience63 vs 57ITW +6
- Quality60 vs 63Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JCI. JCI’s edge is concentrated in momentum; ITW keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -14
No new signals fired.
JCI's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ITW and JCI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JCI (Johnson Controls International plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
ITW (Illinois Tool Works Inc.): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
JCIJCI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
JCIJCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ITWITW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
JCIJCI on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
ITWITW on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
JCIJCI 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 | ITW | JCI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.7% | +17.6% | JCI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.7% | +26.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 7 | 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 JCI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JCI | 46 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | ITWon balance | revenue growth 7.1% vs 7.7%; EPS growth 7.1% vs 21.8%; TTM ROE 101.7% vs 26.9%; gross margin 44.2% vs 36.7%; operating margin 26.5% vs 13.9% — ITW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ITW | Value 46 vs 37 |
| Technicals | JCI | Price vs 50-day -4.3% vs 0.9%; vs 200-day -0.8% vs 5.6% |
| Risk Resilience | ITW | Risk Resilience 63 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | JCI | Target upside 4.7% vs 17.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ITW and JCI 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 JCI.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10JCI lead: Reversed — ITW led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JCI now leads by 5.
- Today
- JCI +5
- 46 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- JCI +3
- 47 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- ITW +6
- 54 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- ITW +13
- 59 vs 46
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when JCI moved ahead of ITW.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.79%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.08%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ITW 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.24%, 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.
- 1ITW closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to JCI's edge.
- 2ITW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3JCI'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
ITW leads on balance| Metric | ITW | JCI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.1% | 7.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.1% | 21.8% |
| Gross margin | 44.2% | 36.7% |
| Operating margin | 26.5% | 13.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 101.7% | 26.9% |
| Debt to equity | 3.35 | 0.7 |
Performance
JCI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ITW | JCI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.4% | 2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.3% | -6.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6% | 2.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.3% | 5.8% |
| Year to date | 7.7% | 19.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.6% | 33.3% |
Technicals
JCI has the stronger structure| Metric | ITW | JCI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.7 | 49.2 |
| ADX (14) | 24.9 | 13.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.3% | 0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.8% | 5.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.1% | 23.9% |
Risk
ITW is the more resilient| Metric | ITW | JCI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.49 | 1.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.02 | 1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.04 | 1.53 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -13% |
| Current drawdown | -11.5% | -7.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.4% | 29.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ITW or JCI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JCI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against ITW's 46. The edge comes from momentum. ITW 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 ITW or JCI the better buy right now?
JCI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JCI over ITW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JCI leads Momentum by 30 points; ITW leads Value by 9 points; ITW leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ITW or JCI?
Analyst price targets imply +4.7% upside for ITW and +17.6% for JCI, so the Street currently favors JCI. 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, ITW or JCI?
ITW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ITW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, ITW or JCI?
JCI 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, ITW or JCI?
JCI on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, ITW or JCI?
ITW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ITW on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 ITW more profitable than JCI?
ITW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.2% vs 36.7%; operating margin 26.5% vs 13.9%; ttm roe 101.7% vs 26.9%.
Is JCI's lead over ITW getting stronger or weaker?
JCI lead: Reversed — ITW led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JCI now leads by 5. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when JCI moved ahead of ITW.
What would change the ITW vs JCI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ITW closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to JCI's edge; ITW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; JCI'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 ITW and JCI?
ITW: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. JCI: 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 ITW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JCI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ITW and JCI 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.