PFS vs SCHW Stock Comparison
PFS currently leads SCHW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 54. The clearest difference is momentum, while SCHW has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between PFS and SCHW?
PFS leads the current stock comparison as Provident Financial Services, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Provident Financial Services, Inc. vs The Charles Schwab Corporation
PFS leads
PFS leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value. Wall Street currently favors SCHW on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PFS, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Provident Financial Services, Inc.
The Charles Schwab Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PFS over SCHW, 56 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. PFS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while SCHW holds the stronger quality profile. PFS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors SCHW. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. PFS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Provident Financial Services, Inc. and The Charles Schwab Corporation 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 PFS and SCHW 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.
- Quality45 vs 86SCHW +41
- Momentum55 vs 25PFS +30
- Value59 vs 37PFS +22
- Risk Resilience73 vs 75Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PFS. PFS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; SCHW keeps a meaningful quality 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 +15
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: PFS moved ahead of SCHW in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PFS and SCHW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PFS (Provident Financial Services, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
SCHW (The Charles Schwab Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 21% against 15.7%.
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
PFSPFS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SCHWSCHW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFSPFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
PFSPFS on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
PFSPFS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
SCHWSCHW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PFS, analyst targets favor SCHW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PFS | SCHW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.6% | +32.6% | SCHW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +3.8% | +41.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 15 | 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 | PFS | SCHW |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 0.85% | 8.45% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.920 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.960 | $1.080 |
| Years increased | 2 | 3 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #133 |
SCHW grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.45% a year against PFS's 0.85%. 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFS. 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 | 56 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | SCHW | revenue growth -5.7% vs -4.1%; EPS growth -1.6% vs 5.2%; TTM ROE 11% vs 28.1%; gross margin 63.2% vs 86.9%; operating margin 28.8% vs 44.3% |
| Valuation | PFS | Value 59 vs 37 |
| Technicals | PFS | Price vs 50-day -2.4% vs -11.7%; vs 200-day 0.1% vs -7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 73 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | SCHW | Target upside 17.6% vs 32.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PFS and SCHW 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 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 PFS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PFS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PFS +2
- 56 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- PFS +2
- 50 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- PFS +1
- 49 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 62 vs 62
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when PFS moved ahead of SCHW.
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
Only PFS
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only SCHW
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
SCHW is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.04%, AIQ +4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.83%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1SCHW closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFS's edge.
- 2SCHW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3PFS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
SCHW leads on balance| Metric | PFS | SCHW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -5.7% | -4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 5.2% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 86.9% |
| Operating margin | 28.8% | 44.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11% | 28.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.65 | 0.14 |
Performance
PFS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | PFS | SCHW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | -5.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.5% | -9.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.2% | -9.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.7% | -1.2% |
| Year to date | 14.1% | -9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26% | -2.7% |
Technicals
PFS has the stronger structure| Metric | PFS | SCHW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.7 | 31.3 |
| ADX (14) | 30.1 | 37 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.4% | -11.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.1% | -7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.7% | 21% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PFS | SCHW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.55 | 0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | -0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.35 | -0.2 |
| Max drawdown | -15.4% | -21.2% |
| Current drawdown | -10.9% | -20% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.6% | 25.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PFS or SCHW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PFS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against SCHW's 54. The edge comes from momentum and value. SCHW is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 SCHW the better buy right now?
PFS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 PFS over SCHW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SCHW leads Quality by 41 points; PFS leads Momentum by 30 points; PFS leads Value by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PFS or SCHW?
Analyst price targets imply +17.6% upside for PFS and +32.6% for SCHW, so the Street currently favors SCHW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PFS. 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 SCHW?
PFS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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 SCHW?
SCHW 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 SCHW?
PFS on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, PFS or SCHW?
PFS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PFS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PFS more profitable than SCHW?
SCHW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 86.9%; operating margin 28.8% vs 44.3%; ttm roe 11% vs 28.1%.
Is PFS's lead over SCHW getting stronger or weaker?
PFS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when PFS moved ahead of SCHW.
What would change the PFS vs SCHW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SCHW closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFS's edge; SCHW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; PFS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 PFS and SCHW?
PFS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. SCHW: 1 bullish / 2 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 SCHW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PFS and SCHW 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.