ONB vs PFS Stock Comparison
ONB currently leads PFS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 56. The clearest difference is quality, while PFS has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ONB and PFS?
ONB leads the current stock comparison as Old National Bancorp, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Old National Bancorp vs Provident Financial Services, Inc.
ONB leads
ONB leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ONB, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Old National Bancorp
Provident Financial Services, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ONB over PFS, 58 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. ONB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while PFS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ONB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ONB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ONB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Old National 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 ONB 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.
- Risk Resilience61 vs 73PFS +12
- Quality56 vs 45ONB +11
- Momentum58 vs 55Even
- Value57 vs 59Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ONB. ONB’s edge is concentrated in quality; 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 +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +15
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
ONB's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ONB and PFS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ONB (Old National Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
PFS (Provident Financial Services, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
ONBONB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ONBONB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
PFSPFS on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
ONBONB 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 | ONB | PFS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.7% | +17.6% | ONB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.9% | +3.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ONB | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 0.00% | 0.85% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.560 | $0.920 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.560 | $0.960 |
| Years increased | 0 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #349 | not ranked |
PFS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 0.85% a year against ONB's 0.00%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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 ONB. 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 | 58 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | ONBon balance | EPS growth 11.7% vs -1.6%; TTM ROE 10.5% vs 11%; gross margin 66.8% vs 63.2%; operating margin 28.7% vs 28.8% — ONB takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 57 vs 59 |
| Technicals | ONB | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs -2.4%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs 0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | PFS | Risk Resilience 61 vs 73 |
| Analyst expectations | ONB | Target upside 20.7% vs 17.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ONB 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 ONB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ONB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ONB +2
- 58 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- ONB +4
- 54 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- ONB +5
- 54 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- PFS +3
- 59 vs 62
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when ONB moved ahead of PFS.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only ONB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short 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.
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 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.96%, AIQ +3 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 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to ONB's edge.
- 2PFS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3ONB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate ONB's advantage entirely.
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
ONB leads on balance| Metric | ONB | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.5% | -5.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.7% | -1.6% |
| Gross margin | 66.8% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 28.7% | 28.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.5% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 0.98 | 1.65 |
Performance
ONB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ONB | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.9% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.2% | -0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4% | -6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.6% | 0.7% |
| Year to date | 13.6% | 14.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 29.3% | 26% |
Technicals
ONB has the stronger structure| Metric | ONB | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.8 | 57.7 |
| ADX (14) | 25.9 | 30.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | -2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | 0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.6% | 15.7% |
Risk
PFS is the more resilient| Metric | ONB | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.99 | 0.85 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.45 | 1.35 |
| Max drawdown | -18.2% | -15.4% |
| Current drawdown | -7.2% | -10.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.8% | 23.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ONB or PFS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ONB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against PFS's 56. The edge comes from quality. 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 ONB or PFS the better buy right now?
ONB 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ONB over PFS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PFS leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; ONB leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ONB or PFS?
Analyst price targets imply +20.7% upside for ONB and +17.6% for PFS, so the Street currently favors ONB. 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, ONB 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, ONB or PFS?
ONB 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, ONB or PFS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, ONB or PFS?
PFS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PFS on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 ONB more profitable than PFS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 66.8% vs 63.2%; operating margin 28.7% vs 28.8%; ttm roe 10.5% vs 11%. Each name leads on one measure, 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 ONB's lead over PFS getting stronger or weaker?
ONB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when ONB moved ahead of PFS.
What would change the ONB 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 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to ONB's edge; PFS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; ONB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate ONB's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ONB and PFS?
ONB: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. PFS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on ONB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PFS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ONB 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.