PFS vs RJF Stock Comparison
Provident Financial Services, Inc. vs Raymond James Financial, Inc.
RJF leads
RJF leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors PFS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support RJF, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Provident Financial Services, Inc.
Raymond James Financial, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RJF over PFS, 61 versus 51 as of Sep 5, 2026. RJF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while PFS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. RJF 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 RJF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. RJF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Provident Financial Services, Inc. and Raymond James Financial, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare PFS and RJF 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%45 vs 72RJF +27
- Momentum25%34 vs 59RJF +25
- Risk Resilience15%72 vs 62PFS +10
- Value30%61 vs 52PFS +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor RJF. RJF’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 +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
RJF's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PFS and RJF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RJF (Raymond James Financial, Inc.): 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
RJFRJF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
RJFRJF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFSPFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
RJFRJF on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
PFSPFS on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 RJF, analyst targets favor PFS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PFS | RJF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.7% | -1.8% | PFS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +3.8% | +28.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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 RJF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RJF | 51 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | RJFon balance | revenue growth -5.7% vs 2.3%; EPS growth -1.6% vs 10.9%; TTM ROE 11% vs 18.3%; gross margin 63.2% vs 83.5%; operating margin 28.8% vs 17.4% — RJF takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PFS | Value 61 vs 52 |
| Technicals | RJF | Price vs 50-day -1.1% vs 3.5%; vs 200-day 7.3% vs 11.2% |
| Risk Resilience | PFS | Risk Resilience 72 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | PFS | Target upside 11.7% vs -1.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PFS and RJF 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 10 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 RJF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4RJF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RJF +10
- 51 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- RJF +7
- 54 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- RJF +2
- 64 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- PFS +1
- 63 vs 62
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jul 2 when RJF 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.
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
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.47%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
RJF 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 +0.68%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.55%, 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 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to RJF's edge.
- 2PFS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3RJF'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
RJF leads on balance| Metric | PFS | RJF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -5.7% | 2.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 10.9% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 83.5% |
| Operating margin | 28.8% | 17.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11% | 18.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.65 | 0.42 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | PFS | RJF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | -0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3% | 1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.4% | 17.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 13.4% | 16.1% |
| Year to date | 20.1% | 11% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.5% | 7% |
Technicals
RJF has the stronger structure| Metric | PFS | RJF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.2 | 48.3 |
| ADX (14) | 21.8 | 20.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.1% | 3.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.3% | 11.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.4% | 24% |
Risk
PFS is the more resilient| Metric | PFS | RJF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.65 | 0.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 0.17 |
| Max drawdown | -15.4% | -20.1% |
| Current drawdown | -6.2% | -1.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.4% | 25.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PFS or RJF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RJF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 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 PFS or RJF the better buy right now?
RJF 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 RJF over PFS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. RJF leads Quality by 27 points; RJF leads Momentum by 25 points; PFS leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PFS or RJF?
Analyst price targets imply +11.7% upside for PFS and -1.8% for RJF, so the Street currently favors PFS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors RJF. 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, PFS or RJF?
PFS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, PFS or RJF?
RJF 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, PFS or RJF?
RJF 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, PFS or RJF?
PFS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PFS on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 PFS more profitable than RJF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.2% vs 83.5%; operating margin 28.8% vs 17.4%; ttm roe 11% vs 18.3%. PFS leads on one measure and RJF 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 RJF's lead over PFS getting stronger or weaker?
RJF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 10 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-02, when RJF moved ahead of PFS.
What would change the PFS vs RJF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PFS closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to RJF's edge; PFS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; RJF'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 PFS and RJF?
PFS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RJF: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 PFS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RJF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PFS and RJF 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.