RF vs WFC Stock Comparison
RF currently leads WFC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 56. The clearest difference is quality, while WFC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between RF and WFC?
RF leads the current stock comparison as Regions Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Regions Financial Corporation vs Wells Fargo & Company
RF leads
RF leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support RF, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Regions Financial Corporation
Wells Fargo & Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RF over WFC, 59 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. RF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while WFC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. RF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. RF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Regions Financial Corporation and Wells Fargo & Company 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 RF and WFC 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 Resilience64 vs 77WFC +13
- Quality64 vs 53RF +11
- Momentum54 vs 49RF +5
- Value56 vs 56Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor RF. RF’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; WFC 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 +7
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, 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.
RF's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RF and WFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RF (Regions Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
WFC (Wells Fargo & Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience — but at materially higher volatility, 24.7% against 18.5%.
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
RFRF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RFRF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
RFRF on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
WFCWFC on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | RF | WFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.9% | +17.9% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +24.2% | +12.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | RF | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.69% | 6.86% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.620 | $1.220 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.030 | $1.700 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #87 | not ranked |
RF grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.69% a year against WFC's 6.86%. RF never reduced its regular dividend in the window; WFC did in 1 year. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RF. 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 | 59 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | RFon balance | EPS growth 12.5% vs -6.4%; TTM ROE 12.3% vs 12.9%; gross margin 77.8% vs 63.9%; operating margin 30.6% vs 21.1% — RF takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 56 vs 56 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -3.2% vs -3%; vs 200-day -2.9% vs -2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | WFC | Risk Resilience 64 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 17.9% vs 17.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RF and WFC 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 RF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20RF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RF +3
- 59 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- RF +7
- 55 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- RF +8
- 51 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- RF +8
- 63 vs 55
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when WFC moved ahead of RF.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only RF
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
RF 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 +0.72%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.27%, 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.
- 1WFC closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to RF's edge.
- 2WFC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3RF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate RF'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
RF leads on balance| Metric | RF | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.4% | -1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.5% | -6.4% |
| Gross margin | 77.8% | 63.9% |
| Operating margin | 30.6% | 21.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.3% | 12.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.59 | 1.26 |
Performance
RF leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | RF | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.2% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.8% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.8% | 0.8% |
| Year to date | 2.8% | -11.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.3% | -2.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | RF | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.7 | 57.5 |
| ADX (14) | 31.2 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.2% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.9% | -2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.5% | 24.7% |
Risk
WFC is the more resilient| Metric | RF | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.67 | -0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.95 | -0.1 |
| Max drawdown | -19.2% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -14% | -14.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.3% | 25.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RF or WFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against WFC's 56. The edge comes from quality and momentum. WFC 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 RF or WFC the better buy right now?
RF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RF over WFC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WFC leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; RF leads Quality by 11 points; RF leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RF or WFC?
Analyst price targets imply +17.9% upside for RF and +17.9% for WFC. 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, RF or WFC?
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, RF or WFC?
RF 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, RF or WFC?
RF on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, RF or WFC?
WFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WFC on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 RF more profitable than WFC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 77.8% vs 63.9%; operating margin 30.6% vs 21.1%; ttm roe 12.3% vs 12.9%. RF leads on two measures and WFC 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 RF's lead over WFC getting stronger or weaker?
RF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-28, when WFC moved ahead of RF.
What would change the RF vs WFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WFC closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to RF's edge; WFC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; RF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate RF's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about RF and WFC?
RF: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WFC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 RF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare RF and WFC 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.