MA vs WFC Stock Comparison
WFC currently leads MA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 50. The clearest difference is value, while MA has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between MA and WFC?
WFC leads the current stock comparison as Wells Fargo & Company, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mastercard Incorporated vs Wells Fargo & Company
WFC leads
WFC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support WFC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Mastercard Incorporated
Wells Fargo & Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WFC over MA, 56 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 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. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WFC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability. WFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Mastercard Incorporated and Wells Fargo & Company 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 MA and WFC 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.
- Momentum95 vs 49MA +46
- Value24 vs 56WFC +32
- Quality32 vs 53WFC +21
- Risk Resilience61 vs 77WFC +16
4 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 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
WFC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
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.
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 most heavily.
Growth
MAMA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WFCWFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
MAMA on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
WFCWFC on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
WFCWFC 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 | MA | WFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5% | +17.9% | WFC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.5% | +12.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MA | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 13.70% | 6.86% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.600 | $1.220 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.040 | $1.700 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #47 | not ranked |
MA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 13.70% a year against WFC's 6.86%. MA never reduced its regular dividend in the window; WFC did in 1 year. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
4 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 | 50 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | MA | EPS growth 14.5% vs -6.4%; TTM ROE 232.5% vs 12.9%; gross margin 100% vs 63.9%; operating margin 59.8% vs 21.1% |
| Valuation | WFC | Value 24 vs 56 |
| Technicals | MA | Price vs 50-day 7.8% vs -3%; vs 200-day 15.8% vs -2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | WFC | Risk Resilience 61 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | WFC | Target upside 5% vs 17.9% |
✓ 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 two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 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 WFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WFC +6
- 50 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- MA +2
- 50 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- WFC +6
- 37 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- WFC +16
- 39 vs 55
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 17 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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MA
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only WFC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
MA 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 +0.35%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.27%, 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 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to WFC's edge.
- 2MA's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3WFC'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
MA leads on balance| Metric | MA | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.5% | -1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.5% | -6.4% |
| Gross margin | 100% | 63.9% |
| Operating margin | 59.8% | 21.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 232.5% | 12.9% |
| Debt to equity | 4.39 | 1.26 |
Performance
MA leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MA | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.6% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.2% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.6% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.5% | 0.8% |
| Year to date | 7.8% | -11.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.3% | -2.1% |
Technicals
MA has the stronger structure| Metric | MA | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.9 | 57.5 |
| ADX (14) | 29.6 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.8% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.8% | -2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.3% | 24.7% |
Risk
WFC is the more resilient| Metric | MA | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | -0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.59 | -0.1 |
| Max drawdown | -18.8% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -14.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.5% | 25.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.7% |
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 Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against MA's 50. 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 Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WFC over MA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MA leads Momentum by 46 points; WFC leads Value by 32 points; WFC leads Quality by 21 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 +5% upside for MA and +17.9% for WFC, so the Street currently favors WFC. 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, 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 32 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?
MA 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 46 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, MA or WFC?
WFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WFC on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 MA more profitable than WFC?
MA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 100% vs 63.9%; operating margin 59.8% vs 21.1%; ttm roe 232.5% vs 12.9%.
Is WFC's lead over MA getting stronger or weaker?
WFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-17, 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 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to WFC's edge; MA's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; WFC'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 MA and WFC?
MA: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. WFC: 2 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 MA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MA and WFC 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.