SCHW vs SFNC Stock Comparison
The Charles Schwab Corporation vs Simmons First National Corporation
SCHW leads
SCHW leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SCHW, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Charles Schwab Corporation
Simmons First National Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHW over SFNC, 56 versus 50 as of Sep 5, 2026. SCHW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while SFNC holds the stronger value profile. SCHW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SCHW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SCHW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Charles Schwab Corporation and Simmons First National Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare SCHW and SFNC 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%69 vs 30SCHW +39
- Value30%31 vs 45SFNC +14
- Risk Resilience15%77 vs 82SFNC +5
- Momentum25%57 vs 59Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SCHW. SCHW’s edge is concentrated in quality; SFNC keeps a meaningful value 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 -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +27
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
SCHW's lead narrowed by 7 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHW and SFNC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SCHW (The Charles Schwab Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
SFNC (Simmons First National Corporation): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, 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
SCHWSCHW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
SCHWSCHW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SFNCSFNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SFNCSFNC on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
SCHWSCHW 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 | SCHW | SFNC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.2% | +4.1% | SCHW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.8% | +4.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SCHW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SCHW | 56 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | SCHWon balance | revenue growth 16.7% vs 17.8%; EPS growth 13.1% vs -2.1%; TTM ROE 20.4% vs -10.2%; gross margin 86.7% vs 13.5%; operating margin 43.5% vs -85.9% — SCHW takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SFNC | Value 31 vs 45 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 4% vs 2.3%; vs 200-day 12.2% vs 12.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SFNC | Risk Resilience 77 vs 82 |
| Analyst expectations | SCHW | Target upside 15.2% vs 4.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SCHW and SFNC 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 6 points.
- 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 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 SCHW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4SCHW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SCHW +6
- 56 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHW +15
- 58 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- SCHW +9
- 62 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- SCHW +7
- 60 vs 53
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jun 26 when SCHW moved ahead of SFNC.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.84%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.36%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
SCHW 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.99%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +3.09%, AIQ +7 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.
- 1SFNC closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHW's edge.
- 2SFNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SCHW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate SCHW'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
SCHW leads on balance| Metric | SCHW | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.7% | 17.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 13.1% | -2.1% |
| Gross margin | 86.7% | 13.5% |
| Operating margin | 43.5% | -85.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.4% | -10.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0.37 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | SCHW | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | 4.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.6% | 1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23% | 9.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 14.8% | 21.9% |
| Year to date | 9.4% | 25.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.6% | 13.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SCHW | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.7 | 46.4 |
| ADX (14) | 30.2 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4% | 2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.2% | 12.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21% | 19.9% |
Risk
SFNC is the more resilient| Metric | SCHW | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.52 | 0.6 |
| Max drawdown | -20.4% | -18.4% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -1.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.4% | 26.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SCHW or SFNC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SCHW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against SFNC's 50. The edge comes from quality. SFNC is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 SCHW or SFNC the better buy right now?
SCHW 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 SCHW over SFNC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SCHW leads Quality by 39 points; SFNC leads Value by 14 points; SFNC leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SCHW or SFNC?
Analyst price targets imply +15.2% upside for SCHW and +4.1% for SFNC, so the Street currently favors SCHW. 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, SCHW or SFNC?
SFNC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SFNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, SCHW or SFNC?
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, SCHW or SFNC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, SCHW or SFNC?
SFNC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SFNC on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 SCHW more profitable than SFNC?
SCHW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 86.7% vs 13.5%; operating margin 43.5% vs -85.9%; ttm roe 20.4% vs -10.2%.
Is SCHW's lead over SFNC getting stronger or weaker?
SCHW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 6 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-26, when SCHW moved ahead of SFNC.
What would change the SCHW vs SFNC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SFNC closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHW's edge; SFNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; SCHW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate SCHW's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SCHW and SFNC?
SCHW: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SFNC: 4 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 SCHW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SFNC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SCHW and SFNC 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.