JPM vs TOST Stock Comparison
TOST currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between JPM and TOST?
TOST leads the current stock comparison as Toast, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Toast, Inc.
TOST leads
TOST leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support TOST, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Toast, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TOST over JPM, 59 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. TOST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TOST also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TOST today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. TOST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Toast, 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 TOST 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 66TOST +20
- Value44 vs 58TOST +14
- Risk Resilience69 vs 55JPM +14
- Momentum61 vs 55JPM +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor TOST. TOST’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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
TOST's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPM and TOST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TOST (Toast, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum.
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
TOSTTOST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TOSTTOST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TOSTTOST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
TOSTTOST 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 | TOST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.7% | +16.4% | TOST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | +46.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 18 | 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 TOST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TOST | 53 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | TOSTon balance | revenue growth -7.6% vs 17.1%; EPS growth -27.6% vs 28.6%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs 23.8%; gross margin 63.2% vs 26.7%; operating margin 28.2% vs 6.4% — TOST takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TOST | Value 44 vs 58 |
| Technicals | TOST | Price vs 50-day -2% vs -1.6%; vs 200-day 5.2% vs 8.7% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 69 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | TOST | Target upside 10.7% vs 16.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and TOST 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 moderate at 6 points.
- 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)
- 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 TOST.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30TOST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TOST +6
- 53 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- TOST +14
- 50 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- TOST +17
- 44 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- TOST +9
- 51 vs 60
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
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only TOST
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.9%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.57%, AIQ 0 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 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to TOST's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3TOST's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate TOST'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
TOST leads on balance| Metric | JPM | TOST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | 17.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | 28.6% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 26.7% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 6.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | 23.8% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | JPM | TOST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | 10.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.3% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.7% | 11.6% |
| Year to date | 5.3% | -10.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.9% | -16.7% |
Technicals
TOST has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | TOST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.9 | 57.5 |
| ADX (14) | 15 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | -1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.2% | 8.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13% | 39.7% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | JPM | TOST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.41 | -0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.56 | -0.27 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -42.8% |
| Current drawdown | -7.1% | -18.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 22% | 46.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -4.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or TOST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TOST is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against JPM's 53. 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 TOST the better buy right now?
TOST 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 TOST over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TOST leads Quality by 20 points; TOST leads Value by 14 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or TOST?
Analyst price targets imply +10.7% upside for JPM and +16.4% for TOST, so the Street currently favors TOST. 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 TOST?
TOST is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TOST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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 TOST?
TOST 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 TOST?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 6 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 TOST?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 TOST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.2% vs 26.7%; operating margin 28.2% vs 6.4%; ttm roe 17.9% vs 23.8%. JPM leads on two measures and TOST 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 TOST's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
TOST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the JPM vs TOST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to TOST's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; TOST's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate TOST's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about JPM and TOST?
JPM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. TOST: 3 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 TOST it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and TOST 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.