JPM vs MSGS Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads MSGS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 46. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while MSGS has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between JPM and MSGS?
JPM leads the current stock comparison as JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from MSGS. Wall Street currently favors MSGS on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over MSGS, 52 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while MSGS holds the stronger momentum profile. JPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MSGS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. JPM lead: Reversed — MSGS led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. 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 MSGS 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 Resilience68 vs 40JPM +28
- Value44 vs 34JPM +10
- Momentum58 vs 67MSGS +9
- Quality46 vs 42JPM +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; MSGS keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +19
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
JPM'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 MSGS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
MSGS (Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 24.9% against 14.8%.
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
JPMJPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MSGSMSGS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
MSGSMSGS on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
MSGSMSGS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors JPM, analyst targets favor MSGS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JPM | MSGS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | +12.6% | MSGS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | +38.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 4 | 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 JPM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JPM | 52 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth -7.6% vs -35.5%; EPS growth -27.6% vs 242.2%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs -2.7%; gross margin 63.2% vs 27.7%; operating margin 28.2% vs 2.5% — JPM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 44 vs 34 |
| Technicals | MSGS | Price vs 50-day -3.4% vs 3.1%; vs 200-day 4% vs 16.7% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 68 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | MSGS | Target upside 11.3% vs 12.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and MSGS 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 moderate at 6 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JPM lead: Reversed — MSGS led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6.
- Today
- JPM +6
- 52 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +2
- 47 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- MSGS +8
- 43 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +4
- 53 vs 49
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when JPM moved ahead of MSGS.
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, conflicted
Only MSGS
- 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.
MSGS 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.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.25%, AIQ +5 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.
- 1MSGS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2MSGS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3JPM'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 | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | -35.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | 242.2% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 27.7% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 2.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | -2.7% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | -4.34 |
Performance
MSGS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | JPM | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 4.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | 4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.1% | 23.6% |
| Year to date | 4% | 59.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.3% | 89.3% |
Technicals
MSGS has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.4 | 56.8 |
| ADX (14) | 20.5 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.4% | 3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 16.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.8% | 24.9% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | JPM | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 0.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 2.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 4.37 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -10.1% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -0.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.2% | 29.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or MSGS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 52 against MSGS's 46. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. MSGS is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 MSGS the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over MSGS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; JPM leads Value by 10 points; MSGS leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or MSGS?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for JPM and +12.6% for MSGS, so the Street currently favors MSGS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors JPM. 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 MSGS?
JPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 MSGS?
MSGS 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 MSGS?
MSGS on the Momentum factor, by 9 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 MSGS?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 MSGS?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 27.7%; operating margin 28.2% vs 2.5%; ttm roe 17.9% vs -2.7%.
Is JPM's lead over MSGS getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Reversed — MSGS led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when JPM moved ahead of MSGS.
What would change the JPM vs MSGS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSGS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; MSGS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; JPM'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 MSGS?
JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. MSGS: 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 JPM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MSGS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and MSGS 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.