JBHT vs JBLU Stock Comparison
JBHT currently leads JBLU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 35. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while JBLU has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between JBHT and JBLU?
JBHT leads the current stock comparison as J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. vs JetBlue Airways Corporation
JBHT leads
JBHT leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JBLU on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JBHT, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.
JetBlue Airways Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JBHT over JBLU, 51 versus 35 as of Oct 21, 2026. JBHT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while JBLU holds the stronger value profile. JBHT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JBLU. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JBHT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. JBHT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. and JetBlue Airways Corporation 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 JBHT and JBLU 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.
- Risk Resilience57 vs 19JBHT +38
- Quality51 vs 21JBHT +30
- Momentum48 vs 25JBHT +23
- Value51 vs 65JBLU +14
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JBHT. JBHT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; JBLU keeps a meaningful value 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 +6
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 8 active signals are unchanged.
JBHT's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JBHT and JBLU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JBHT (J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
JBLU (JetBlue Airways Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 54.1% against 28.7%.
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
JBHTJBHT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
JBLUJBLU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JBLUJBLU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
JBHTJBHT on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
JBHTJBHT on Risk Resilience, by 38 points.
Analyst upside
JBLUJBLU on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors JBHT, analyst targets favor JBLU. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JBHT | JBLU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.1% | +80.2% | JBLU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +60.2% | +85.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Sell | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JBHT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JBHT | 51 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | JBLUon balance | revenue growth 5.2% vs 20.4%; EPS growth -4.7% vs 23%; TTM ROE 18.8% vs -45.5%; gross margin 15% vs 46.8%; operating margin 7.2% vs -5.9% — JBLU takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JBLU | Value 51 vs 65 |
| Technicals | JBHT | Price vs 50-day -8.5% vs -33.4%; vs 200-day -7.7% vs -41.9% |
| Risk Resilience | JBHT | Risk Resilience 57 vs 19 |
| Analyst expectations | JBLU | Target upside 27.1% vs 80.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JBHT and JBLU and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 JBHT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JBHT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JBHT +16
- 51 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- JBHT +18
- 53 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- JBHT +1
- 40 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- JBHT +17
- 55 vs 38
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when JBHT moved ahead of JBLU.
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 / 0 bearish
Only JBHT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.87%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only JBLU
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.85%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.00%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
JBLU 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 +0.97%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.69%, 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.
- 1JBLU closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to JBHT's edge.
- 2JBLU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JBHT'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
JBLU leads on balance| Metric | JBHT | JBLU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.2% | 20.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.7% | 23% |
| Gross margin | 15% | 46.8% |
| Operating margin | 7.2% | -5.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.8% | -45.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.31 | 5.91 |
Performance
JBHT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | JBHT | JBLU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -13.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.6% | -33.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -22.4% | -43.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.2% | -46.7% |
| Year to date | 16.5% | -33.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 46.2% | -39% |
Technicals
JBHT has the stronger structure| Metric | JBHT | JBLU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.3 | 8.8 |
| ADX (14) | 31.6 | 46.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.5% | -33.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.7% | -41.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.7% | 54.1% |
Risk
JBHT is the more resilient| Metric | JBHT | JBLU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.81 | 2.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.99 | -0.49 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | -0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -25.4% | -55% |
| Current drawdown | -24.1% | -55% |
| Annualized volatility | 34% | 63.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JBHT or JBLU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JBHT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 51 against JBLU's 35. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. JBLU 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 JBHT or JBLU the better buy right now?
JBHT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JBHT over JBLU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JBHT leads Risk Resilience by 38 points; JBHT leads Quality by 30 points; JBHT leads Momentum by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JBHT or JBLU?
Analyst price targets imply +27.1% upside for JBHT and +80.2% for JBLU, so the Street currently favors JBLU. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors JBHT. 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, JBHT or JBLU?
JBLU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JBLU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, JBHT or JBLU?
JBLU 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, JBHT or JBLU?
JBHT on the Momentum factor, by 23 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, JBHT or JBLU?
JBHT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JBHT on Risk Resilience, by 38 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 JBHT more profitable than JBLU?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 15% vs 46.8%; operating margin 7.2% vs -5.9%; ttm roe 18.8% vs -45.5%. JBHT leads on two measures and JBLU 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 JBHT's lead over JBLU getting stronger or weaker?
JBHT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 16 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when JBHT moved ahead of JBLU.
What would change the JBHT vs JBLU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JBLU closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to JBHT's edge; JBLU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; JBHT'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 JBHT and JBLU?
JBHT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. JBLU: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 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 JBHT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JBLU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare JBHT and JBLU 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.