JPM vs FTNT Stock Comparison
FTNT currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 52. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between JPM and FTNT?
FTNT leads the current stock comparison as Fortinet, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Fortinet, Inc.
FTNT leads
FTNT leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JPM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FTNT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Fortinet, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FTNT over JPM, 57 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. FTNT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while JPM holds the stronger value profile. FTNT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JPM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FTNT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. FTNT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Fortinet, Inc. 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 JPM and FTNT 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.
- Quality46 vs 95FTNT +49
- Value44 vs 27JPM +17
- Momentum58 vs 46JPM +12
- Risk Resilience68 vs 57JPM +11
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FTNT. FTNT’s edge is concentrated in quality; JPM 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 +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
FTNT's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPM and FTNT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FTNT (Fortinet, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, risk resilience.
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
FTNTFTNT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FTNTFTNT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
JPMJPM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FTNT, analyst targets favor JPM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JPM | FTNT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | -13.9% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | +93.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 25 | 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 FTNT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FTNT | 52 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | FTNT | revenue growth -7.6% vs 10.7%; EPS growth -27.6% vs 15.3%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs 187.9%; gross margin 63.2% vs 80.4%; operating margin 28.2% vs 32.4% |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 44 vs 27 |
| Technicals | FTNT | Price vs 50-day -3.4% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 4% vs 37.1% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 68 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside 11.3% vs -13.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and FTNT 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)
- 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 leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 FTNT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FTNT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FTNT +5
- 52 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- FTNT +16
- 47 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- FTNT +22
- 43 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- FTNT +8
- 53 vs 61
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only JPM
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FTNT
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.87%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
FTNT 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 -0.02%, AIQ +3 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.83%, 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 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTNT's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3FTNT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 17 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate FTNT'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
FTNT leads on balance| Metric | JPM | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 80.4% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 32.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | 187.9% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | 0.32 |
Performance
FTNT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | JPM | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | -10.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | 10.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.1% | 100.5% |
| Year to date | 4% | 115.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.3% | 105.6% |
Technicals
FTNT has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.4 | 42 |
| ADX (14) | 20.5 | 30.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.4% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 37.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.8% | 39.4% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | JPM | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 0.98 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 1.79 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 3.22 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -14.3% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -12.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.2% | 43.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or FTNT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FTNT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against JPM's 52. The edge comes from quality. JPM 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 JPM or FTNT the better buy right now?
FTNT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FTNT over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FTNT leads Quality by 49 points; JPM leads Value by 17 points; JPM leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or FTNT?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for JPM and -13.9% for FTNT, so the Street currently favors JPM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FTNT. 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, JPM or FTNT?
JPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, JPM or FTNT?
FTNT 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, JPM or FTNT?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, JPM or FTNT?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 JPM more profitable than FTNT?
FTNT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 80.4%; operating margin 28.2% vs 32.4%; ttm roe 17.9% vs 187.9%.
Is FTNT's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
FTNT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the JPM vs FTNT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTNT's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; FTNT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 17 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate FTNT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about JPM and FTNT?
JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. FTNT: 3 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 JPM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FTNT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and FTNT 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.