MA vs WFC Stock Comparison
Mastercard Incorporated vs Wells Fargo & Company
WFC leads
WFC leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality. Wall Street currently favors MA on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support WFC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Mastercard Incorporated
Wells Fargo & Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WFC over MA, 54 versus 45 as of Sep 2, 2026. WFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while MA holds the stronger momentum profile. WFC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MA. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WFC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. WFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Mastercard Incorporated and Wells Fargo & Company across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Value30%24 vs 57WFC +33
- Momentum25%78 vs 58MA +20
- Quality30%32 vs 42WFC +10
- Risk Resilience15%60 vs 63Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor WFC. WFC’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; MA keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
WFC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MA and WFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WFC (Wells Fargo & Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
MA (Mastercard Incorporated): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals.
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
WFCWFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
WFCWFC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WFCWFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
MAMA on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
WFCWFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MAMA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WFC, analyst targets favor MA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MA | WFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.5% | +9.4% | MA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.6% | +20.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 7 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WFC | 45 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | MAon balance | revenue growth 10.5% vs 5.6%; EPS growth 14.5% vs 24.7%; ROE 232.5% vs 12.6%; gross margin 82.7% vs 64.5%; operating margin 59.4% vs 21.2% — MA takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WFC | Value 24 vs 57 |
| Technicals | MA | Price vs 50-day 6.9% vs 2.8%; vs 200-day 11.3% vs 1.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | MA | Target upside 10.5% vs 9.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MA and WFC 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 9 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 WFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1WFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WFC +9
- 45 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- WFC +2
- 47 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- WFC +10
- 44 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- WFC +13
- 41 vs 54
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when WFC moved ahead of MA.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.86%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.61%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
WFC leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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 +1.23%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.88%, 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.
- 1MA closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to WFC's edge.
- 2MA's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3WFC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
MA leads on balance| Metric | MA | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.5% | 5.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.5% | 24.7% |
| Gross margin | 82.7% | 64.5% |
| Operating margin | 59.4% | 21.2% |
| Return on equity | 232.5% | 12.6% |
| Debt to equity | 4.39 | 2.55 |
Technicals
MA has the stronger structure| Metric | MA | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.6 | 45.6 |
| ADX (14) | 37.4 | 11.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.9% | 2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.3% | 1.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 18.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MA | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.28 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.07 | 0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.11 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -21.2% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -1.8% | -10.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.6% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MA or WFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 54 against MA's 45. The edge comes from value and quality. MA is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 MA or WFC the better buy right now?
WFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WFC over MA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WFC leads Value by 33 points; MA leads Momentum by 20 points; WFC leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MA or WFC?
Analyst price targets imply +10.5% upside for MA and +9.4% for WFC, so the Street currently favors MA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WFC. 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, MA or WFC?
WFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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, MA or WFC?
WFC 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, MA or WFC?
MA on the Momentum factor, by 20 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, MA or WFC?
WFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is MA more profitable than WFC?
MA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 82.7% vs 64.5%; operating margin 59.4% vs 21.2%; roe 232.5% vs 12.6%.
Is WFC's lead over MA getting stronger or weaker?
WFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when WFC moved ahead of MA.
What would change the MA vs WFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MA closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to WFC's edge; MA's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; WFC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about MA and WFC?
MA: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. WFC: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 MA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MA and WFC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.