JPM vs MNST Stock Comparison
MNST currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between JPM and MNST?
MNST leads the current stock comparison as Monster Beverage Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Monster Beverage Corporation
MNST leads
MNST leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MNST, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Monster Beverage Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MNST over JPM, 60 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. MNST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while JPM holds the stronger value profile. MNST also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNST today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. MNST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Monster Beverage 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 MNST 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 80MNST +34
- Value44 vs 24JPM +20
- Momentum61 vs 73MNST +12
- Risk Resilience69 vs 73MNST +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MNST. MNST’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; JPM keeps a meaningful value 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 +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
MNST's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPM and MNST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MNST (Monster Beverage Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on 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
MNSTMNST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MNSTMNST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
MNSTMNST on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
MNSTMNST on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
MNSTMNST 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 | MNST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.7% | +92.5% | MNST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | +59.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MNST | 53 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | MNSTon balance | revenue growth -7.6% vs 7.8%; EPS growth -27.6% vs 3.4%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs 25%; gross margin 63.2% vs 55.5%; operating margin 28.2% vs 29.2% — MNST takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 44 vs 24 |
| Technicals | MNST | Price vs 50-day -2% vs 5.7%; vs 200-day 5.2% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | MNST | Risk Resilience 69 vs 73 |
| Analyst expectations | MNST | Target upside 10.7% vs 92.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and MNST 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 moderate at 7 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 MNST.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MNST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MNST +7
- 53 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- MNST +11
- 50 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- MNST +8
- 44 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- MNST +6
- 52 vs 58
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when MNST moved ahead of JPM.
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
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only MNST
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.14%, 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 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNST's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MNST'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
MNST leads on balance| Metric | JPM | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | 7.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | 3.4% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 55.5% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 29.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | 25% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | 0 |
Performance
MNST leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | JPM | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | -2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | 9.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.3% | -6.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.7% | 18.8% |
| Year to date | 5.3% | 19.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.9% | 31% |
Technicals
MNST has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.9 | 62.6 |
| ADX (14) | 15 | 23.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | 5.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.2% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13% | 22.7% |
Risk
MNST is the more resilient| Metric | JPM | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.29 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.41 | 1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.56 | 1.69 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -17.7% |
| Current drawdown | -7.1% | -8.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 22% | 26.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or MNST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MNST is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 MNST the better buy right now?
MNST 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 MNST over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MNST leads Quality by 34 points; JPM leads Value by 20 points; MNST 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 MNST?
Analyst price targets imply +10.7% upside for JPM and +92.5% for MNST, so the Street currently favors MNST. 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 MNST?
JPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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 MNST?
MNST 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 MNST?
MNST 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 MNST?
MNST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MNST on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 MNST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.2% vs 55.5%; operating margin 28.2% vs 29.2%; ttm roe 17.9% vs 25%. JPM leads on one measure and MNST 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 MNST's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
MNST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 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 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when MNST moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the JPM vs MNST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNST's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MNST'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 MNST?
JPM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. MNST: 4 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 MNST it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and MNST 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.