JPM vs PFG Stock Comparison
PFG currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 51. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between JPM and PFG?
PFG leads the current stock comparison as Principal Financial Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Principal Financial Group, Inc.
PFG leads
PFG leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value. Wall Street currently favors JPM on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support PFG, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Principal Financial Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PFG over JPM, 59 versus 51 as of Oct 31, 2026. PFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. PFG 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 PFG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. PFG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Principal Financial Group, 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 PFG 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 60PFG +14
- Value44 vs 56PFG +12
- Momentum55 vs 60PFG +5
- Risk Resilience68 vs 63JPM +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor PFG. PFG’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; JPM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
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 3 active signals are unchanged.
PFG's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPM and PFG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PFG (Principal Financial Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
PFGPFG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PFGPFG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFGPFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
PFGPFG on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 PFG, analyst targets favor JPM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JPM | PFG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.7% | -2.4% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | +38.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 8 | 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 | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 9.04% | 6.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.600 | $2.240 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.550 | $3.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #120 | #198 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against PFG's 6.58%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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 PFG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PFG | 51 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth -7.6% vs 10.7%; EPS growth -27.6% vs -4.7%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs 13%; gross margin 63.2% vs 48.5%; operating margin 28.2% vs 12.1% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PFG | Value 44 vs 56 |
| Technicals | PFG | Price vs 50-day -1.8% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day 4.4% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 68 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside 10.7% vs -2.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and PFG 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 8 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 PFG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30PFG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PFG +8
- 51 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- PFG +5
- 50 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- PFG +8
- 44 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- PFG +4
- 51 vs 55
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 24 when PFG 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 / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only PFG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.9%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.78%, 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 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFG's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3PFG'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 | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | -4.7% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 48.5% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 12.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | 13% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | 0.36 |
Performance
PFG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JPM | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.4% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.4% | -3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.9% | 10.4% |
| Year to date | 4.6% | 26.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.3% | 35.4% |
Technicals
PFG has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.1 | 61.4 |
| ADX (14) | 14.3 | 21 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.8% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.4% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.3% | 20.5% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | JPM | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.32 | 1.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.44 | 2.12 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -12.8% |
| Current drawdown | -7.7% | -5.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.1% | 22.3% |
| 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 PFG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PFG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against JPM's 51. The edge comes from quality and value. JPM is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 PFG the better buy right now?
PFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 PFG over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PFG leads Quality by 14 points; PFG leads Value by 12 points; PFG leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or PFG?
Analyst price targets imply +10.7% upside for JPM and -2.4% for PFG, so the Street currently favors JPM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PFG. 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 PFG?
PFG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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 PFG?
PFG 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 PFG?
PFG on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 PFG?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 PFG?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 48.5%; operating margin 28.2% vs 12.1%; ttm roe 17.9% vs 13%.
Is PFG's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
PFG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-24, when PFG moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the JPM vs PFG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFG's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; PFG'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 PFG?
JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. PFG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on JPM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PFG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and PFG 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.