RJF vs TBBK Stock Comparison
TBBK currently leads RJF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 56. The clearest difference is momentum, while RJF has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between RJF and TBBK?
TBBK leads the current stock comparison as The Bancorp, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Raymond James Financial, Inc. vs The Bancorp, Inc.
TBBK leads
TBBK leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from RJF.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support TBBK, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Raymond James Financial, Inc.
The Bancorp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TBBK over RJF, 57 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. TBBK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while RJF holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TBBK also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TBBK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TBBK lead: Reversed — RJF led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TBBK now leads by 1.
Compare Raymond James Financial, Inc. and The Bancorp, 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 RJF and TBBK 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.
- Momentum36 vs 55TBBK +19
- Risk Resilience65 vs 52RJF +13
- Value51 vs 46RJF +5
- Quality72 vs 72Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor TBBK. TBBK’s edge is concentrated in momentum; RJF 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 +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
TBBK's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RJF and TBBK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TBBK (The Bancorp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
RJF (Raymond James Financial, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
TBBKTBBK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TBBKTBBK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RJFRJF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
TBBKTBBK on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
RJFRJF on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
TBBKTBBK 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 | RJF | TBBK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.7% | +53.8% | TBBK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.8% | +45.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Strong Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TBBK. 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 57 |
| Fundamentals | TBBKon balance | revenue growth 2.3% vs 24.1%; EPS growth 10.9% vs 2.1%; TTM ROE 18.3% vs 32.3%; gross margin 83.5% vs 70.4%; operating margin 17.4% vs 40.7% — TBBK takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RJF | Value 51 vs 46 |
| Technicals | RJF | Price vs 50-day -7.3% vs -11.8%; vs 200-day -3.3% vs -14.6% |
| Risk Resilience | RJF | Risk Resilience 65 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | TBBK | Target upside 15.7% vs 53.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RJF and TBBK 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 TBBK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TBBK lead: Reversed — RJF led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TBBK now leads by 1.
- Today
- TBBK +1
- 56 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- RJF +3
- 56 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- RJF +2
- 52 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- RJF +5
- 63 vs 58
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when TBBK moved ahead of RJF.
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 RJF
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.62%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TBBK
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.74%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
TBBK 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 +0.27%, AIQ +3 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.34%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1RJF closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to TBBK's edge.
- 2RJF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TBBK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
TBBK leads on balance| Metric | RJF | TBBK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.3% | 24.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10.9% | 2.1% |
| Gross margin | 83.5% | 70.4% |
| Operating margin | 17.4% | 40.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.3% | 32.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.42 | 1.36 |
Performance
RJF leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | RJF | TBBK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.6% | -23.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.5% | -15.6% |
| Year to date | -3.3% | -25% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.1% | -29.4% |
Technicals
RJF has the stronger structure| Metric | RJF | TBBK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43 | 62.9 |
| ADX (14) | 38.6 | 38 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.3% | -11.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.3% | -14.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.9% | 26.4% |
Risk
RJF is the more resilient| Metric | RJF | TBBK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.72 | 1.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.19 | -0.6 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.25 | -0.58 |
| Max drawdown | -18.9% | -39.2% |
| Current drawdown | -14.3% | -36.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.9% | 45.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RJF or TBBK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TBBK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against RJF's 56. The edge comes from momentum. RJF 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 RJF or TBBK the better buy right now?
TBBK 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TBBK over RJF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TBBK leads Momentum by 19 points; RJF leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; RJF leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RJF or TBBK?
Analyst price targets imply +15.7% upside for RJF and +53.8% for TBBK, so the Street currently favors TBBK. 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, RJF or TBBK?
RJF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RJF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, RJF or TBBK?
TBBK 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, RJF or TBBK?
TBBK on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, RJF or TBBK?
RJF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RJF 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 RJF more profitable than TBBK?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 83.5% vs 70.4%; operating margin 17.4% vs 40.7%; ttm roe 18.3% vs 32.3%. RJF leads on one measure and TBBK 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 TBBK's lead over RJF getting stronger or weaker?
TBBK lead: Reversed — RJF led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TBBK now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when TBBK moved ahead of RJF.
What would change the RJF vs TBBK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RJF closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to TBBK's edge; RJF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TBBK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 RJF and TBBK?
RJF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. TBBK: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 RJF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TBBK it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare RJF and TBBK 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.