JPM vs WBS Stock Comparison
WBS currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 52. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between JPM and WBS?
WBS leads the current stock comparison as Webster Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Webster Financial Corporation
WBS leads
WBS leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JPM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support WBS, and its lead is narrowing.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Webster Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WBS over JPM, 58 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. WBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. WBS 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 WBS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. WBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Webster Financial Corporation 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 WBS 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 62WBS +16
- Value44 vs 49WBS +5
- Risk Resilience68 vs 69Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor WBS. WBS’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
WBS's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPM and WBS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WBS (Webster Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on 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
WBSWBS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WBSWBS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WBSWBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
JPMJPM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WBS, analyst targets favor JPM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JPM | WBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | -2% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 1 | 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 | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 9.04% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.600 | $1.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.550 | $1.600 |
| Years increased | 5 | 0 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #120 | #349 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against WBS's 0.00%. 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 WBS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WBS | 52 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth -7.6% vs 12.7%; EPS growth -27.6% vs 4%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs 10.7%; gross margin 63.2% vs 62.5%; operating margin 28.2% vs 26.9% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WBS | Value 44 vs 49 |
| Technicals | WBS | Price vs 50-day -3.4% vs 1.4%; vs 200-day 4% vs 11.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 68 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside 11.3% vs -2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and WBS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 WBS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WBS +6
- 52 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- WBS +12
- 47 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- WBS +16
- 43 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- WBS +10
- 53 vs 63
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%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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).
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 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to WBS's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3WBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate WBS'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 | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | 12.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | 4% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 62.5% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 26.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | 0.46 |
Performance
WBS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | JPM | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | 8.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.1% | 7% |
| Year to date | 4% | 23.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.3% | 34.9% |
Technicals
WBS has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.4 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 20.5 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.4% | 1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 11.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.8% | 14.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | JPM | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 1.56 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -13.2% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -2% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.2% | 23.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or WBS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WBS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against JPM's 52. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 WBS the better buy right now?
WBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WBS over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WBS leads Quality by 16 points; WBS leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or WBS?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for JPM and -2% for WBS, so the Street currently favors JPM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WBS. 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 WBS?
WBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 WBS?
WBS 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 WBS?
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 WBS?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. 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 WBS?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 62.5%; operating margin 28.2% vs 26.9%; ttm roe 17.9% vs 10.7%.
Is WBS's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
WBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 6 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 WBS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to WBS's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; WBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate WBS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about JPM and WBS?
JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. WBS: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on JPM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and WBS 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.