JPM vs ZM Stock Comparison
ZM currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 76 vs 52. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between JPM and ZM?
ZM leads the current stock comparison as Zoom Communications, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Zoom Communications, Inc.
ZM leads
ZM leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 20 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support ZM, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Zoom Communications, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZM over JPM, 76 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. ZM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. ZM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. ZM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Zoom Communications, 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 ZM 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 92ZM +46
- Value44 vs 64ZM +20
- Momentum58 vs 75ZM +17
- Risk Resilience68 vs 70Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor ZM. ZM’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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ZM's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPM and ZM both carry a full feed there.
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
ZMZM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZMZM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZMZM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
ZMZM on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ZMZM 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 | ZM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | +17.9% | ZM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | +24.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 13 | 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 ZM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ZM | 52 vs 76 |
| Fundamentals | ZMon balance | revenue growth -7.6% vs 3.1%; EPS growth -27.6% vs 262.1%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs 32.3%; gross margin 63.2% vs 77.3%; operating margin 28.2% vs 23.7% — ZM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZM | Value 44 vs 64 |
| Technicals | ZM | Price vs 50-day -3.4% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 4% vs 6.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 68 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | ZM | Target upside 11.3% vs 17.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and ZM 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 24 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 widening. (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 ZM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ZM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZM +24
- 52 vs 76
- 7 sessions ago
- ZM +31
- 47 vs 78
- 30 sessions ago
- ZM +20
- 43 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- ZM +21
- 53 vs 74
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 26 when ZM 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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only ZM
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.55%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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.
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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.03%, 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 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZM's edge.
- 2JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3ZM'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
ZM leads on balance| Metric | JPM | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.6% | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.6% | 262.1% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 77.3% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 23.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | 32.3% |
| Debt to equity | 3.32 | 0.01 |
Performance
ZM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JPM | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | -0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 7.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | 13.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.1% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 4% | 12.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.3% | 22.1% |
Technicals
ZM has the stronger structure| Metric | JPM | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.4 | 63.4 |
| ADX (14) | 20.5 | 11.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.4% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 6.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.8% | 37.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | JPM | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 1.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -25.9% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -12.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.2% | 44.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or ZM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 76 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 ZM the better buy right now?
ZM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 ZM over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZM leads Quality by 46 points; ZM leads Value by 20 points; ZM leads Momentum by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or ZM?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for JPM and +17.9% for ZM, so the Street currently favors ZM. 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 ZM?
ZM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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 ZM?
ZM 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 ZM?
ZM on the Momentum factor, by 17 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 ZM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 ZM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.2% vs 77.3%; operating margin 28.2% vs 23.7%; ttm roe 17.9% vs 32.3%. JPM leads on one measure and ZM on two measures, 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 ZM's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
ZM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 24 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-26, when ZM moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the JPM vs ZM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZM's edge; JPM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; ZM'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 ZM?
JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. ZM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on JPM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and ZM 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.