JPM vs NXRT Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads NXRT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 41. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while NXRT has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between JPM and NXRT?
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 NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NXRT on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over NXRT, 52 versus 41 as of Oct 22, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while NXRT holds the stronger value profile. JPM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NXRT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and NexPoint Residential Trust, 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 NXRT 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 28JPM +40
- Momentum58 vs 35JPM +23
- Value44 vs 63NXRT +19
- Quality46 vs 30JPM +16
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; NXRT 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 +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
JPM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPM and NXRT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
NXRT (NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 47.3% 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
NXRTNXRT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NXRTNXRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 40 points.
Analyst upside
NXRTNXRT 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 NXRT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JPM | NXRT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | +17.5% | NXRT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | +37.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 2 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | JPM | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 9.04% | 10.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.600 | $1.279 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.550 | $2.060 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #120 | #10 |
NXRT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.00% a year against JPM's 9.04%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and REITs — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
3 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 41 |
| Fundamentals | NXRTon balance | revenue growth -7.6% vs 1.7%; EPS growth -27.6% vs -22.2%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs -11.8%; gross margin 63.2% vs 90.8%; operating margin 28.2% vs 11.1% — NXRT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NXRT | Value 44 vs 63 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -3.4% vs -16.7%; vs 200-day 4% vs -29.9% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 68 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | NXRT | Target upside 11.3% vs 17.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and NXRT 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 moderate at 11 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JPM +11
- 52 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +6
- 47 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- JPM +4
- 43 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +17
- 53 vs 36
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.65%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only NXRT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.55%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.00%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
NXRT 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.22%, 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.
- 1NXRT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2NXRT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 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
NXRT leads on balance| Metric | JPM | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | 1.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | -22.2% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 90.8% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 11.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | -11.8% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | 6.41 |
Performance
JPM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | JPM | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | -4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | -14.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | -29% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.1% | -30.1% |
| Year to date | 4% | -38.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.3% | -40.1% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.4 | 42 |
| ADX (14) | 20.5 | 42.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.4% | -16.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | -29.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.8% | 47.3% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | JPM | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 0.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | -1.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | -2.52 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -44.2% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -42.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.2% | 31.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or NXRT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 52 against NXRT's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. NXRT 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 NXRT the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 JPM over NXRT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 40 points; JPM leads Momentum by 23 points; NXRT leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or NXRT?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for JPM and +17.5% for NXRT, so the Street currently favors NXRT. 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 NXRT?
NXRT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NXRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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 NXRT?
NXRT 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 NXRT?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 23 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 NXRT?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 40 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 NXRT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.2% vs 90.8%; operating margin 28.2% vs 11.1%; ttm roe 17.9% vs -11.8%. JPM leads on two measures and NXRT on one measure, 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 JPM's lead over NXRT getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 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 NXRT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NXRT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; NXRT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; 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 NXRT?
JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. NXRT: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 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 NXRT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and NXRT 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.