JCI vs JPM Stock Comparison
JCI currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between JCI and JPM?
JCI leads the current stock comparison as Johnson Controls International plc, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Johnson Controls International plc vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JCI leads
JCI leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JCI, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Johnson Controls International plc
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JCI over JPM, 54 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. JCI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience 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 1 points. JCI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Johnson Controls International plc 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 JCI 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.
- Risk Resilience48 vs 69JPM +21
- Quality63 vs 46JCI +17
- Value38 vs 44JPM +6
- Momentum65 vs 61JCI +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JCI. JCI’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; JPM keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +5
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
JCI's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JCI and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JCI (Johnson Controls International plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
JCIJCI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
JCIJCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
JCIJCI on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 | JCI | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.7% | +10.7% | JCI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.7% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | JCI | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.17% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.040 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.540 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #141 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against JCI's 8.17%. 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
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 | Even | 54 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | JCIon balance | revenue growth 7.7% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 21.8% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 26.9% vs 17.9%; gross margin 36.7% vs 63.2%; operating margin 13.9% vs 28.2% — JCI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 38 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JCI | Price vs 50-day 1.4% vs -2%; vs 200-day 11.8% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 48 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | JCI | Target upside 15.7% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JCI 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 swung materially session to session. (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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28JCI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JCI +1
- 54 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +5
- 45 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- JCI +15
- 59 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +8
- 44 vs 52
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when JPM moved ahead of JCI.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
Only JCI
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
JPM 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.84%, AIQ +2 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 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to JCI's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach 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.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 14 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate JCI'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
JCI leads on balance| Metric | JCI | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.7% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 21.8% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 36.7% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 13.9% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.9% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.7 | 3.32 |
Performance
JCI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | JCI | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.2% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.9% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.4% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.3% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 31% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 39.3% | 12.9% |
Technicals
JCI has the stronger structure| Metric | JCI | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.6 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.8% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39.7% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | JCI | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.15 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.11 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.62 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -13% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -0.9% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.6% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JCI or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JCI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 54 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from quality and momentum. JPM is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 JCI or JPM the better buy right now?
JCI 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JCI over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; JCI leads Quality by 17 points; JPM leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JCI or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +15.7% upside for JCI and +10.7% for JPM, 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, JCI or JPM?
JPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JPM 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, JCI or JPM?
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, JCI or JPM?
JCI on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, JCI or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 JCI more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 36.7% vs 63.2%; operating margin 13.9% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 26.9% vs 17.9%. JCI leads on one measure and JPM on two measures, 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 JCI's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
JCI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 1 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-22, when JPM moved ahead of JCI.
What would change the JCI 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 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to JCI's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach 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; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 14 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate JCI's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about JCI and JPM?
JCI: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 JCI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JCI 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.