NTRS vs OFG Stock Comparison
Northern Trust Corporation vs OFG Bancorp
OFG leads
OFG leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support OFG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Northern Trust Corporation
OFG Bancorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors OFG over NTRS, 62 versus 55 as of Sep 5, 2026. OFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while NTRS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. OFG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor OFG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. OFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Northern Trust Corporation and OFG Bancorp across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare NTRS and OFG 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.
- Quality30%56 vs 70OFG +14
- Risk Resilience15%77 vs 63NTRS +14
- Value30%44 vs 57OFG +13
- Momentum25%53 vs 59OFG +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor OFG. OFG’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; NTRS keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
OFG's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NTRS and OFG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
OFG (OFG Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
NTRS (Northern Trust Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
OFGOFG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
NTRSNTRS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
OFGOFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
OFGOFG on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
NTRSNTRS on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
OFGOFG 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 | NTRS | OFG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.9% | +2.6% | OFG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +13.2% | +16.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor OFG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | OFG | 55 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | NTRSon balance | revenue growth 11.3% vs 1.9%; EPS growth 56.2% vs 10.3%; TTM ROE 17.1% vs 15.9%; gross margin 59.8% vs 74.1%; operating margin 19.8% vs 31.5% — NTRS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | OFG | Value 44 vs 57 |
| Technicals | OFG | Price vs 50-day 1.5% vs 3%; vs 200-day 17.8% vs 19% |
| Risk Resilience | NTRS | Risk Resilience 77 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | OFG | Target upside -2.9% vs 2.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NTRS and OFG 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 7 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 OFG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4OFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- OFG +7
- 55 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- OFG +7
- 57 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- OFG +3
- 62 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- OFG +7
- 60 vs 67
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.99%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.53%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
OFG 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 -0.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.76%, 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.
- 1NTRS closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to OFG's edge.
- 2NTRS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3OFG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
NTRS leads on balance| Metric | NTRS | OFG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.3% | 1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 56.2% | 10.3% |
| Gross margin | 59.8% | 74.1% |
| Operating margin | 19.8% | 31.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.1% | 15.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.18 | 0.41 |
Performance
OFG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | NTRS | OFG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.6% | 1.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.5% | 15% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 34.7% | 35.8% |
| Year to date | 36.6% | 29.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 43.9% | 19.6% |
Technicals
OFG has the stronger structure| Metric | NTRS | OFG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.6 | 47.1 |
| ADX (14) | 14.3 | 24.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.5% | 3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.8% | 19% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.7% | 14.7% |
Risk
NTRS is the more resilient| Metric | NTRS | OFG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.95 | 0.48 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.44 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.26 | 0.78 |
| Max drawdown | -12.9% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -2.5% | -1.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.8% | 24.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NTRS or OFG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, OFG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against NTRS's 55. The edge comes from quality and value. NTRS is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 NTRS or OFG the better buy right now?
OFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 OFG over NTRS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. OFG leads Quality by 14 points; NTRS leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; OFG leads Value by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NTRS or OFG?
Analyst price targets imply -2.9% upside for NTRS and +2.6% for OFG, so the Street currently favors OFG. 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, NTRS or OFG?
OFG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, NTRS or OFG?
NTRS 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, NTRS or OFG?
OFG on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, NTRS or OFG?
NTRS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NTRS on Risk Resilience, by 14 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is NTRS more profitable than OFG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 59.8% vs 74.1%; operating margin 19.8% vs 31.5%; ttm roe 17.1% vs 15.9%. NTRS leads on one measure and OFG 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 OFG's lead over NTRS getting stronger or weaker?
OFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the NTRS vs OFG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NTRS closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to OFG's edge; NTRS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; OFG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 NTRS and OFG?
NTRS: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. OFG: 4 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 NTRS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On OFG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NTRS and OFG 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.