JPM vs QRVO Stock Comparison
QRVO currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 53. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between JPM and QRVO?
QRVO leads the current stock comparison as Qorvo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Qorvo, Inc.
QRVO leads
QRVO leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support QRVO, and its lead is narrowing.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Qorvo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QRVO over JPM, 66 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. QRVO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. QRVO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QRVO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. QRVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Qorvo, 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 QRVO 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.
- Value44 vs 71QRVO +27
- Quality46 vs 56QRVO +10
- Risk Resilience69 vs 76QRVO +7
5 of 6 evidence groups favor QRVO. QRVO’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
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
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
QRVO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPM and QRVO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QRVO (Qorvo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on fundamentals.
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
QRVOQRVO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
QRVOQRVO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
QRVOQRVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
QRVOQRVO on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
QRVOQRVO 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 | QRVO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.7% | +12% | QRVO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | +22.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 2 | 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 QRVO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QRVO | 53 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth -7.6% vs -2.9%; EPS growth -27.6% vs 203.1%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs 11.4%; gross margin 63.2% vs 48.2%; operating margin 28.2% vs 13.1% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | QRVO | Value 44 vs 71 |
| Technicals | QRVO | Price vs 50-day -2% vs -6.1%; vs 200-day 5.2% vs 26.1% |
| Risk Resilience | QRVO | Risk Resilience 69 vs 76 |
| Analyst expectations | QRVO | Target upside 10.7% vs 12% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and QRVO 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 QRVO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28QRVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QRVO +13
- 53 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- QRVO +16
- 50 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- QRVO +22
- 44 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- QRVO +10
- 52 vs 62
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 21 when QRVO 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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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).
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 Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to QRVO's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3QRVO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate QRVO'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
JPM leads on balance| Metric | JPM | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | -2.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | 203.1% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 48.2% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 13.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | 11.4% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | 0.45 |
Performance
QRVO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JPM | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | 13.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.3% | 30.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.7% | 45.1% |
| Year to date | 5.3% | 35.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.9% | 25.4% |
Technicals
QRVO has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.9 | 58.2 |
| ADX (14) | 15 | 32.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | -6.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.2% | 26.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13% | 59.3% |
Risk
QRVO is the more resilient| Metric | JPM | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.41 | 0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.56 | 1 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -7.1% | -4.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 22% | 39.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or QRVO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QRVO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 66 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 QRVO the better buy right now?
QRVO 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 QRVO over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QRVO leads Value by 27 points; QRVO leads Quality by 10 points; QRVO leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or QRVO?
Analyst price targets imply +10.7% upside for JPM and +12% for QRVO, so the Street currently favors QRVO. 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 QRVO?
QRVO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QRVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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 QRVO?
QRVO 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 QRVO?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 QRVO?
QRVO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QRVO on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 QRVO?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 48.2%; operating margin 28.2% vs 13.1%; ttm roe 17.9% vs 11.4%.
Is QRVO's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
QRVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 13 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-21, when QRVO moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the JPM vs QRVO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to QRVO's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; QRVO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate QRVO's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about JPM and QRVO?
JPM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. QRVO: No active signals. 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).
Compare JPM and QRVO 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.