NTRS vs ONB Stock Comparison
Northern Trust Corporation vs Old National Bancorp
NTRS leads
NTRS leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors ONB on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support NTRS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Northern Trust Corporation
Old National Bancorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NTRS over ONB, 55 versus 53 as of Sep 5, 2026. NTRS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while ONB holds the stronger value profile. NTRS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ONB. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NTRS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. NTRS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Northern Trust Corporation and Old National Bancorp across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare NTRS and ONB 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.
- Momentum25%53 vs 35NTRS +18
- Value30%44 vs 59ONB +15
- Risk Resilience15%77 vs 63NTRS +14
- Quality30%56 vs 56Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor NTRS. NTRS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; ONB keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
No new signals fired.
NTRS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NTRS and ONB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NTRS (Northern Trust Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
ONB (Old National Bancorp): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
NTRSNTRS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
NTRSNTRS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ONBONB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
NTRSNTRS on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
NTRSNTRS on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
ONBONB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors NTRS, analyst targets favor ONB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | NTRS | ONB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.9% | +9.7% | ONB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +13.2% | +24.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 6 | 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 NTRS. 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 | 55 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 56.2% vs 11.7%; TTM ROE 17.1% vs 10.5%; gross margin 59.8% vs 66.8%; operating margin 19.8% vs 28.7% |
| Valuation | ONB | Value 44 vs 59 |
| Technicals | NTRS | Price vs 50-day 1.5% vs -1.1%; vs 200-day 17.8% vs 8% |
| Risk Resilience | NTRS | Risk Resilience 77 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | ONB | Target upside -2.9% vs 9.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NTRS and ONB 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 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 NTRS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4NTRS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NTRS +2
- 55 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- NTRS +5
- 57 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- NTRS +1
- 62 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ONB +3
- 60 vs 63
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when NTRS moved ahead of ONB.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.20%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
NTRS 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 +0.23%, 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.
- 1ONB closes the Momentum gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to NTRS's edge.
- 2ONB's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3NTRS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
Split| Metric | NTRS | ONB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.3% | 0.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 56.2% | 11.7% |
| Gross margin | 59.8% | 66.8% |
| Operating margin | 19.8% | 28.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.1% | 10.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.18 | 0.98 |
Performance
NTRS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NTRS | ONB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.6% | -2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.5% | 8.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 34.7% | 16.7% |
| Year to date | 36.6% | 16.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 43.9% | 14.4% |
Technicals
NTRS has the stronger structure| Metric | NTRS | ONB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.6 | 33.5 |
| ADX (14) | 14.3 | 21.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.5% | -1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.8% | 8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.7% | 17% |
Risk
NTRS is the more resilient| Metric | NTRS | ONB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.95 | 0.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.44 | 0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.26 | 0.57 |
| Max drawdown | -12.9% | -18.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2.5% | -4.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.8% | 26.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NTRS or ONB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NTRS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 55 against ONB's 53. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. ONB is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 ONB the better buy right now?
NTRS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 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 NTRS over ONB?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. NTRS leads Momentum by 18 points; ONB leads Value by 15 points; NTRS leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NTRS or ONB?
Analyst price targets imply -2.9% upside for NTRS and +9.7% for ONB, so the Street currently favors ONB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NTRS. 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, NTRS or ONB?
ONB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ONB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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 ONB?
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 ONB?
NTRS on the Momentum factor, by 18 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 ONB?
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 ONB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 59.8% vs 66.8%; operating margin 19.8% vs 28.7%; ttm roe 17.1% vs 10.5%. NTRS leads on one measure and ONB 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 NTRS's lead over ONB getting stronger or weaker?
NTRS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when NTRS moved ahead of ONB.
What would change the NTRS vs ONB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ONB closes the Momentum gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to NTRS's edge; ONB's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; NTRS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 ONB?
NTRS: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ONB: 1 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 ONB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NTRS and ONB 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.