MFC vs SPY Stock Comparison
Compare MFC and SPY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MFC and SPY?
MFC leads the current stock comparison as Manulife Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Manulife Financial Corporation vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
MFC leads
MFC leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from SPY.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support MFC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Manulife Financial Corporation
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MFC over SPY, 62 versus 60 as of Sep 11, 2026. MFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while SPY holds the stronger quality profile. MFC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MFC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. MFC lead: Reversed — SPY led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MFC now leads by 2.
Compare Manulife Financial Corporation and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare MFC and SPY 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.
- Quality55 vs 84SPY +29
- Momentum68 vs 39MFC +29
- Value56 vs 39MFC +17
- Risk Resilience78 vs 89SPY +11
2 of 4 evidence groups favor MFC. MFC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; SPY keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +23
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -13
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: MFC moved ahead of SPY in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MFC and SPY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MFC (Manulife Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
SPY (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience.
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
MFCMFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
MFCMFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
MFCMFC on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
SPYSPY on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | MFC | SPY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.3% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | 0% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 62 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | MFC | Value 56 vs 39 |
| Technicals | MFC | Price vs 50-day 0.7% vs 0.8%; vs 200-day 12.7% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | SPY | Risk Resilience 78 vs 89 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MFC and SPY 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MFC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MFC lead: Reversed — SPY led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MFC now leads by 2.
- Today
- MFC +2
- 62 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- SPY +3
- 61 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- SPY +10
- 59 vs 69
- 90 sessions ago
- MFC +5
- 64 vs 59
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when MFC moved ahead of SPY.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.92%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.24%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.5%)
MFC 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 +0.02%, AIQ +6 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.85%, 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.
- 1SPY closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to MFC's edge.
- 2SPY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3MFC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
Split| Metric | MFC | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 60.1% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 87.5% | — |
| Gross margin | 36.6% | — |
| Operating margin | 14.5% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.27 | — |
Performance
MFC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MFC | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | -1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.8% | 4.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 28.9% | 12.1% |
| Year to date | 19.8% | 11.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 41.4% | 16.8% |
Technicals
MFC has the stronger structure| Metric | MFC | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.8 | 45.1 |
| ADX (14) | 18.9 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.7% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.9% | 8.5% |
Risk
SPY is the more resilient| Metric | MFC | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.77 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.61 | 0.95 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.28 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -13.4% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -2.9% | -2.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.2% | 12.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MFC or SPY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 62 against SPY's 60. The edge comes from momentum and value. SPY is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 MFC or SPY the better buy right now?
MFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MFC over SPY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SPY leads Quality by 29 points; MFC leads Momentum by 29 points; MFC leads Value by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MFC or SPY?
Analyst price targets imply +17.3% upside for MFC and not covered for SPY. 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, MFC or SPY?
MFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, MFC or SPY?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, MFC or SPY?
MFC on the Momentum factor, by 29 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, MFC or SPY?
SPY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPY on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 MFC more profitable than SPY?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is MFC's lead over SPY getting stronger or weaker?
MFC lead: Reversed — SPY led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MFC now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when MFC moved ahead of SPY.
What would change the MFC vs SPY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SPY closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to MFC's edge; SPY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or Uptrend Structure Active; MFC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 MFC and SPY?
MFC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SPY: 3 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 MFC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SPY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.