JJSF vs OFG Stock Comparison
J&J Snack Foods Corp. vs OFG Bancorp
OFG leads
OFG leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JJSF on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support OFG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
J&J Snack Foods Corp.
OFG Bancorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors OFG over JJSF, 62 versus 50 as of Sep 5, 2026. OFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. OFG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JJSF. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor OFG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. OFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare J&J Snack Foods Corp. and OFG Bancorp across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare JJSF and OFG 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.
- Quality30%46 vs 70OFG +24
- Value30%48 vs 57OFG +9
- Momentum25%51 vs 59OFG +8
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 63Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor OFG. OFG’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
OFG's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JJSF and OFG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
OFG (OFG Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
JJSF (J&J Snack Foods Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 24.8% against 14.7%.
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
OFGOFG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
JJSFJJSF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
OFGOFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
OFGOFG on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
OFGOFG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
JJSFJJSF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors OFG, analyst targets favor JJSF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JJSF | OFG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.1% | +2.6% | JJSF has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +16.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 3 | 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 OFG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | OFG | 50 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | OFGon balance | revenue growth 23.5% vs 1.9%; EPS growth 20.3% vs 10.3%; TTM ROE 5.4% vs 15.9%; gross margin 31.1% vs 74.1%; operating margin 4.6% vs 31.5% — OFG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | OFG | Value 48 vs 57 |
| Technicals | OFG | Price vs 50-day 2.4% vs 3%; vs 200-day 0.5% vs 19% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | JJSF | Target upside 20.1% vs 2.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JJSF and OFG 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 OFG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4OFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- OFG +12
- 50 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- OFG +14
- 50 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- OFG +9
- 56 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- OFG +22
- 45 vs 67
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
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.53%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
OFG 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.76%, 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.
- 1JJSF closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to OFG's edge.
- 2JJSF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3OFG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
OFG leads on balance| Metric | JJSF | OFG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 23.5% | 1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 20.3% | 10.3% |
| Gross margin | 31.1% | 74.1% |
| Operating margin | 4.6% | 31.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.4% | 15.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.22 | 0.41 |
Performance
OFG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | JJSF | OFG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.8% | 1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.5% | 1.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.5% | 15% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.5% | 35.8% |
| Year to date | -6.9% | 29.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -22.7% | 19.6% |
Technicals
OFG has the stronger structure| Metric | JJSF | OFG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.5 | 47.1 |
| ADX (14) | 19.5 | 24.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.4% | 3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.5% | 19% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.8% | 14.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | JJSF | OFG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.34 | 0.48 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.67 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | 0.78 |
| Max drawdown | -35.9% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -22.8% | -1.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.5% | 24.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JJSF or OFG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, OFG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against JJSF's 50. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 OFG the better buy right now?
OFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 OFG over JJSF?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. OFG leads Quality by 24 points; OFG leads Value by 9 points; OFG leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JJSF or OFG?
Analyst price targets imply +20.1% upside for JJSF and +2.6% for OFG, so the Street currently favors JJSF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors OFG. 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 OFG?
OFG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OFG 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, JJSF or OFG?
JJSF 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 OFG?
OFG on the Momentum factor, by 8 points. 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 OFG?
OFG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. OFG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 OFG?
OFG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 31.1% vs 74.1%; operating margin 4.6% vs 31.5%; ttm roe 5.4% vs 15.9%.
Is OFG's lead over JJSF getting stronger or weaker?
OFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 12 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 OFG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JJSF closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to OFG's edge; JJSF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; OFG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 OFG?
JJSF: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. OFG: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 JJSF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On OFG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JJSF and OFG 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.