OFG vs PFS Stock Comparison
OFG Bancorp vs Provident Financial Services, Inc.
OFG leads
OFG leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors PFS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support OFG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
OFG Bancorp
Provident Financial Services, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors OFG over PFS, 62 versus 51 as of Sep 5, 2026. OFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while PFS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. OFG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PFS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor OFG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. OFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare OFG Bancorp and Provident Financial Services, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare OFG and PFS 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%70 vs 45OFG +25
- Momentum25%59 vs 34OFG +25
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 72PFS +9
- Value30%57 vs 61PFS +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor OFG. OFG’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; PFS 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: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
OFG's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — OFG and PFS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
OFG (OFG Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
PFS (Provident Financial Services, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
OFGOFG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
OFGOFG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFSPFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
OFGOFG on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
PFSPFS on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
PFSPFS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors OFG, analyst targets favor PFS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | OFG | PFS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.6% | +11.7% | PFS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.5% | +3.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 2 | 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
3 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 | 62 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | OFG | revenue growth 1.9% vs -5.7%; EPS growth 10.3% vs -1.6%; TTM ROE 15.9% vs 11%; gross margin 74.1% vs 63.2%; operating margin 31.5% vs 28.8% |
| Valuation | PFS | Value 57 vs 61 |
| Technicals | OFG | Price vs 50-day 3% vs -1.1%; vs 200-day 19% vs 7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | PFS | Risk Resilience 63 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | PFS | Target upside 2.6% vs 11.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of OFG and PFS 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 11 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 1 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- OFG +11
- 62 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- OFG +10
- 64 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- OFG +1
- 65 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- OFG +4
- 67 vs 63
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.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.49%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.76%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.68%, 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.
- 1PFS closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to OFG's edge.
- 2PFS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 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
OFG leads on balance| Metric | OFG | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.9% | -5.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10.3% | -1.6% |
| Gross margin | 74.1% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 31.5% | 28.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.9% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 0.41 | 1.65 |
Performance
OFG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | OFG | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.8% | -3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15% | 5.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 35.8% | 13.4% |
| Year to date | 29.9% | 20.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | 19.5% |
Technicals
OFG has the stronger structure| Metric | OFG | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.1 | 33.2 |
| ADX (14) | 24.5 | 21.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3% | -1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19% | 7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.7% | 17.4% |
Risk
PFS is the more resilient| Metric | OFG | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.48 | 0.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.78 | 0.91 |
| Max drawdown | -18.1% | -15.4% |
| Current drawdown | -1.4% | -6.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.8% | 25.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, OFG or PFS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, OFG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against PFS's 51. The edge comes from quality and momentum. PFS 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 OFG or PFS the better buy right now?
OFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor OFG over PFS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. OFG leads Quality by 25 points; OFG leads Momentum by 25 points; PFS leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, OFG or PFS?
Analyst price targets imply +2.6% upside for OFG and +11.7% for PFS, so the Street currently favors PFS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors OFG. 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, OFG or PFS?
PFS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, OFG or PFS?
OFG 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, OFG or PFS?
OFG on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, OFG or PFS?
PFS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PFS on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 OFG more profitable than PFS?
OFG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 74.1% vs 63.2%; operating margin 31.5% vs 28.8%; ttm roe 15.9% vs 11%.
Is OFG's lead over PFS getting stronger or weaker?
OFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 11 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 OFG vs PFS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PFS closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to OFG's edge; PFS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; 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 OFG and PFS?
OFG: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PFS: 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 OFG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PFS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare OFG and PFS 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.