JBHT vs LUV Stock Comparison
Compare JBHT vs LUV on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between JBHT and LUV?
JBHT and LUV are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. vs Southwest Airlines Co.
JBHT and LUV are effectively level
JBHT and LUV are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.
Southwest Airlines Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate JBHT and LUV as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. and Southwest Airlines 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 JBHT and LUV 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.
- Momentum48 vs 33JBHT +15
- Value51 vs 62LUV +11
- Risk Resilience57 vs 50JBHT +7
- Quality51 vs 54Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
JBHT's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JBHT and LUV both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
LUVLUV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LUVLUV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
JBHTJBHT on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
JBHTJBHT on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
LUVLUV 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 | JBHT | LUV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.1% | +30.6% | LUV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +60.2% | +55.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | JBHT | LUV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.26% | 31.95% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.080 | $0.180 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.760 | $0.720 |
| Years increased | 5 | — |
| No cut in window | Yes | — |
| Cohort rank | #92 | not ranked |
LUV grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 31.95% a year against JBHT's 10.26%.
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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 51 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | LUVon balance | revenue growth 5.2% vs 16.3%; EPS growth -4.7% vs 6.7%; TTM ROE 18.8% vs 11.3%; gross margin 15% vs 61%; operating margin 7.2% vs 3.5% — LUV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LUV | Value 51 vs 62 |
| Technicals | LUV | Price vs 50-day -8.5% vs -2.5%; vs 200-day -7.7% vs -8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | JBHT | Risk Resilience 57 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | LUV | Target upside 27.1% vs 30.6% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 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 swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LUV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 51 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- JBHT +2
- 53 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- LUV +18
- 40 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- JBHT +5
- 55 vs 50
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when JBHT moved ahead of LUV.
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
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only LUV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.33%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.58%, AIQ +2 points).
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
LUV leads on balance| Metric | JBHT | LUV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.2% | 16.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.7% | 6.7% |
| Gross margin | 15% | 61% |
| Operating margin | 7.2% | 3.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.8% | 11.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.31 | 0.97 |
Performance
JBHT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | JBHT | LUV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.6% | -5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -22.4% | -16.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.2% | -3.1% |
| Year to date | 16.5% | -4.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 46.2% | 19.1% |
Technicals
LUV has the stronger structure| Metric | JBHT | LUV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.3 | 40.2 |
| ADX (14) | 31.6 | 13.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.5% | -2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.7% | -8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.7% | 31.5% |
Risk
JBHT is the more resilient| Metric | JBHT | LUV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.81 | 1.62 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.99 | 0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -25.4% | -33.8% |
| Current drawdown | -24.1% | -27.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 34% | 44.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, JBHT or LUV?
Analyst price targets imply +27.1% upside for JBHT and +30.6% for LUV, so the Street currently favors LUV. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, JBHT or LUV?
LUV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LUV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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 LUV?
LUV 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 LUV?
JBHT 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, JBHT or LUV?
JBHT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JBHT on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 LUV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 15% vs 61%; operating margin 7.2% vs 3.5%; ttm roe 18.8% vs 11.3%. JBHT leads on two measures and LUV 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.
What do the current signals say about JBHT and LUV?
JBHT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. LUV: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on JBHT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On LUV it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare JBHT and LUV 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.