OFG vs PFS Stock Comparison
OFG currently leads PFS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 56. The clearest difference is quality, while PFS has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between OFG and PFS?
OFG leads the current stock comparison as OFG Bancorp, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ 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 6 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, 67 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. OFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while PFS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. OFG also shows the weaker 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 6 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.
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 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.
- Quality70 vs 45OFG +25
- Momentum79 vs 55OFG +24
- Risk Resilience62 vs 73PFS +11
- Value56 vs 59Even
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 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +15
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
OFG's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
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, 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
OFGOFG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
OFGOFG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
OFGOFG on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
PFSPFS on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 | +8.1% | +17.6% | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | OFG | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 33.78% | 0.85% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.280 | $0.920 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.200 | $0.960 |
| Years increased | 5 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
OFG grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 33.78% a year against PFS's 0.85%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — 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
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 | 67 vs 56 |
| 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 | Even | Value 56 vs 59 |
| Technicals | OFG | Price vs 50-day -2.9% vs -2.4%; vs 200-day 14.1% vs 0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | PFS | Risk Resilience 62 vs 73 |
| Analyst expectations | PFS | Target upside 8.1% vs 17.6% |
✓ 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20OFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- OFG +11
- 67 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- OFG +13
- 63 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- OFG +6
- 55 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- OFG +2
- 64 vs 62
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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only OFG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, 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 (2.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -4.63%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.04%, AIQ +4 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 generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3OFG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 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
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) | 4.1% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.4% | -0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.6% | -6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 18.4% | 0.7% |
| Year to date | 29.2% | 14.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.8% | 26% |
Technicals
OFG has the stronger structure| Metric | OFG | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.2 | 57.7 |
| ADX (14) | 21.4 | 30.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.9% | -2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.1% | 0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 15.7% |
Risk
PFS is the more resilient| Metric | OFG | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.39 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.01 | 0.85 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.29 | 1.35 |
| Max drawdown | -13.5% | -15.4% |
| Current drawdown | -1.9% | -10.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.7% | 23.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.9% |
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 Oct 21, 2026, scoring 67 against PFS's 56. 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 Oct 21, 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, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. OFG leads Quality by 25 points; OFG leads Momentum by 24 points; PFS leads Risk Resilience by 11 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 +8.1% upside for OFG and +17.6% 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?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 24 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, 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 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 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 6 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. 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 generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; OFG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 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 OFG and PFS?
OFG: 5 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PFS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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
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.