JPM vs QLYS Stock Comparison
QLYS currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 72 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between JPM and QLYS?
QLYS leads the current stock comparison as Qualys, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Qualys, Inc.
QLYS leads
QLYS leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 27 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JPM on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support QLYS, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Qualys, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QLYS over JPM, 72 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. QLYS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. QLYS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JPM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QLYS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. QLYS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Qualys, 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 QLYS 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 96QLYS +50
- Momentum61 vs 86QLYS +25
- Risk Resilience69 vs 44JPM +25
- Value44 vs 52QLYS +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor QLYS. QLYS’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; JPM keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 7 active signals are unchanged.
QLYS'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 QLYS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QLYS (Qualys, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
QLYSQLYS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
QLYSQLYS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
QLYSQLYS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
QLYSQLYS on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 QLYS, analyst targets favor JPM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JPM | QLYS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.7% | -29.1% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | +81.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 11 | 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 QLYS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QLYS | 53 vs 72 |
| Fundamentals | QLYS | revenue growth -7.6% vs 3.1%; EPS growth -27.6% vs 5.6%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs 37.2%; gross margin 63.2% vs 83.5%; operating margin 28.2% vs 34.6% |
| Valuation | QLYS | Value 44 vs 52 |
| Technicals | QLYS | Price vs 50-day -2% vs 20%; vs 200-day 5.2% vs 67.3% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 69 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside 10.7% vs -29.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and QLYS 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 wide at 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 QLYS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28QLYS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QLYS +19
- 53 vs 72
- 7 sessions ago
- QLYS +19
- 50 vs 69
- 30 sessions ago
- QLYS +27
- 44 vs 71
- 90 sessions ago
- QLYS +10
- 52 vs 62
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
6 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only QLYS
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.53%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.68%, 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 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to QLYS's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3QLYS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 19-point move would eliminate QLYS's advantage entirely.
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
QLYS leads on balance| Metric | JPM | QLYS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | 5.6% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 83.5% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 34.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | 37.2% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | 0.09 |
Performance
QLYS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | JPM | QLYS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 13.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | 19.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.3% | 57.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.7% | 149.5% |
| Year to date | 5.3% | 62.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.9% | 74.6% |
Technicals
QLYS has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | QLYS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.9 | 66.5 |
| ADX (14) | 15 | 20.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | 20% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.2% | 67.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13% | 51.4% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | JPM | QLYS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.44 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.41 | 1.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.56 | 1.87 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -50.5% |
| Current drawdown | -7.1% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 22% | 58.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or QLYS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QLYS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 72 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 QLYS the better buy right now?
QLYS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 QLYS over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QLYS leads Quality by 50 points; QLYS leads Momentum by 25 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 25 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or QLYS?
Analyst price targets imply +10.7% upside for JPM and -29.1% for QLYS, so the Street currently favors JPM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors QLYS. 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 QLYS?
QLYS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QLYS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 QLYS?
QLYS 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 QLYS?
QLYS on the Momentum factor, by 25 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 QLYS?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 QLYS?
QLYS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 83.5%; operating margin 28.2% vs 34.6%; ttm roe 17.9% vs 37.2%.
Is QLYS's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
QLYS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 19 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 QLYS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to QLYS's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; QLYS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 19-point move would eliminate QLYS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about JPM and QLYS?
JPM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. QLYS: 6 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 QLYS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and QLYS 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.