JPM vs MFC Stock Comparison
MFC currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 53. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between JPM and MFC?
MFC leads the current stock comparison as Manulife Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Manulife Financial Corporation
MFC leads
MFC leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MFC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Manulife Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MFC over JPM, 65 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. MFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. MFC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MFC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. MFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 12 points over 30 sessions. MFC leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Manulife Financial Corporation 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 MFC 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.
- Momentum61 vs 79MFC +18
- Value44 vs 55MFC +11
- Risk Resilience69 vs 79MFC +10
- Quality46 vs 55MFC +9
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MFC. MFC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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 +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
MFC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPM and MFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MFC (Manulife Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on fundamentals.
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
MFCMFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MFCMFC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MFCMFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
MFCMFC on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
MFCMFC on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
MFCMFC 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 | JPM | MFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.7% | +14.3% | MFC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | JPM | MFC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 9.04% | 8.42% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.600 | $0.837 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.550 | $1.254 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #120 | not ranked |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against MFC's 8.42%. JPM never reduced its regular dividend in the window; MFC did in 1 year.
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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MFC | 53 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth -7.6% vs 60.1%; EPS growth -27.6% vs 87.5%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs 13%; gross margin 63.2% vs 36.6%; operating margin 28.2% vs 14.5% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MFC | Value 44 vs 55 |
| Technicals | MFC | Price vs 50-day -2% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day 5.2% vs 12.2% |
| Risk Resilience | MFC | Risk Resilience 69 vs 79 |
| Analyst expectations | MFC | Target upside 10.7% vs 14.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and MFC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MFC +12
- 53 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- MFC +12
- 50 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- MFC +9
- 44 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- MFC +7
- 52 vs 59
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only MFC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.9%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.37%, 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.
- 1JPM closes the Momentum gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to MFC's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
JPM leads on balance| Metric | JPM | MFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | 60.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | 87.5% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 36.6% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 14.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | 13% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | 0.27 |
Performance
MFC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JPM | MFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | 5.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.3% | 0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.7% | 17.3% |
| Year to date | 5.3% | 23.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.9% | 37.3% |
Technicals
MFC has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | MFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.9 | 69.6 |
| ADX (14) | 15 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.2% | 12.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13% | 20.5% |
Risk
MFC is the more resilient| Metric | JPM | MFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.41 | 1.45 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.56 | 2 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -13.4% |
| Current drawdown | -7.1% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 22% | 20.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or MFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MFC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from momentum 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 JPM or MFC the better buy right now?
MFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MFC over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MFC leads Momentum by 18 points; MFC leads Value by 11 points; MFC leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. MFC leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by JPM simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or MFC?
Analyst price targets imply +10.7% upside for JPM and +14.3% for MFC, so the Street currently favors MFC. 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, JPM or MFC?
MFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MFC 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, JPM or MFC?
MFC 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 MFC?
MFC on the Momentum factor, by 18 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 MFC?
MFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MFC on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 MFC?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 36.6%; operating margin 28.2% vs 14.5%; ttm roe 17.9% vs 13%.
Is MFC's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
MFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the JPM vs MFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Momentum gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to MFC's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about JPM and MFC?
JPM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. MFC: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 MFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and MFC 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.