JJSF vs NTRS Stock Comparison
J&J Snack Foods Corp. vs Northern Trust Corporation
NTRS leads
NTRS leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors JJSF on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support NTRS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
J&J Snack Foods Corp.
Northern Trust Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NTRS over JJSF, 55 versus 50 as of Sep 5, 2026. NTRS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while JJSF holds the stronger value profile. NTRS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JJSF. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NTRS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. NTRS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare J&J Snack Foods Corp. and Northern Trust Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare JJSF and NTRS 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 Resilience15%61 vs 77NTRS +16
- Quality30%46 vs 56NTRS +10
- Value30%48 vs 44JJSF +4
- Momentum25%51 vs 53Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor NTRS. NTRS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; JJSF keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
NTRS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JJSF and NTRS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NTRS (Northern Trust Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
JJSF (J&J Snack Foods Corp.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 24.8% against 18.7%.
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
NTRSNTRS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
NTRSNTRS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JJSFJJSF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
NTRSNTRS on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
JJSFJJSF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors NTRS, analyst targets favor JJSF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JJSF | NTRS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.1% | -2.9% | JJSF has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +13.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NTRS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NTRS | 50 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | NTRSon balance | revenue growth 23.5% vs 11.3%; EPS growth 20.3% vs 56.2%; TTM ROE 5.4% vs 17.1%; gross margin 31.1% vs 59.8%; operating margin 4.6% vs 19.8% — NTRS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JJSF | Value 48 vs 44 |
| Technicals | NTRS | Price vs 50-day 2.4% vs 1.5%; vs 200-day 0.5% vs 17.8% |
| Risk Resilience | NTRS | Risk Resilience 61 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | JJSF | Target upside 20.1% vs -2.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JJSF and NTRS 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)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 NTRS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4NTRS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NTRS +5
- 50 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- NTRS +7
- 50 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- NTRS +6
- 56 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- NTRS +15
- 45 vs 60
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.87%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.99%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
NTRS 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.15%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.43%, 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.
- 1JJSF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to NTRS's edge.
- 2JJSF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NTRS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
NTRS leads on balance| Metric | JJSF | NTRS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 23.5% | 11.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 20.3% | 56.2% |
| Gross margin | 31.1% | 59.8% |
| Operating margin | 4.6% | 19.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.4% | 17.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.22 | 1.18 |
Performance
NTRS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JJSF | NTRS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.8% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.5% | 0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.5% | 9.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.5% | 34.7% |
| Year to date | -6.9% | 36.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -22.7% | 43.9% |
Technicals
NTRS has the stronger structure| Metric | JJSF | NTRS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.5 | 40.6 |
| ADX (14) | 19.5 | 14.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.4% | 1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.5% | 17.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.8% | 18.7% |
Risk
NTRS is the more resilient| Metric | JJSF | NTRS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.34 | 0.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.67 | 1.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | 2.26 |
| Max drawdown | -35.9% | -12.9% |
| Current drawdown | -22.8% | -2.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.5% | 24.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JJSF or NTRS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NTRS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 55 against JJSF's 50. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. JJSF 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 JJSF or NTRS the better buy right now?
NTRS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 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 NTRS over JJSF?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. NTRS leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; NTRS leads Quality by 10 points; JJSF leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JJSF or NTRS?
Analyst price targets imply +20.1% upside for JJSF and -2.9% for NTRS, so the Street currently favors JJSF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NTRS. 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, JJSF or NTRS?
JJSF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JJSF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, JJSF or NTRS?
NTRS 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, JJSF or NTRS?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, JJSF or NTRS?
NTRS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NTRS on Risk Resilience, by 16 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is JJSF more profitable than NTRS?
NTRS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 31.1% vs 59.8%; operating margin 4.6% vs 19.8%; ttm roe 5.4% vs 17.1%.
Is NTRS's lead over JJSF getting stronger or weaker?
NTRS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the JJSF vs NTRS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JJSF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to NTRS's edge; JJSF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NTRS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about JJSF and NTRS?
JJSF: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NTRS: 3 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 JJSF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NTRS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JJSF and NTRS with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.