SCHW vs TCBI Stock Comparison
TCBI currently leads SCHW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 54. The clearest difference is value, while SCHW has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between SCHW and TCBI?
TCBI leads the current stock comparison as Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Charles Schwab Corporation vs Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.
TCBI leads
TCBI leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors SCHW on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support TCBI, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Charles Schwab Corporation
Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TCBI over SCHW, 56 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. TCBI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while SCHW holds the stronger quality profile. TCBI 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 TCBI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. TCBI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Charles Schwab Corporation and Texas Capital Bancshares, 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 SCHW and TCBI 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.
- Quality86 vs 65SCHW +21
- Value37 vs 53TCBI +16
- Momentum25 vs 36TCBI +11
- Risk Resilience75 vs 75Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor TCBI. TCBI’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; 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: 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
TCBI's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHW and TCBI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TCBI (Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
SCHW (The Charles Schwab Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
TCBITCBI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TCBITCBI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TCBITCBI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
TCBITCBI on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
SCHWSCHW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TCBI, analyst targets favor SCHW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SCHW | TCBI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.6% | +17.4% | SCHW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +41.1% | +12.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 4 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TCBI. 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 | 54 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | SCHWon balance | revenue growth -4.1% vs -9.9%; EPS growth 5.2% vs 13.3%; TTM ROE 28.1% vs 10%; gross margin 86.9% vs 62.4%; operating margin 44.3% vs 24.8% — SCHW takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TCBI | Value 37 vs 53 |
| Technicals | TCBI | Price vs 50-day -11.7% vs -2.3%; vs 200-day -7.3% vs -7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | SCHW | Target upside 32.6% vs 17.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SCHW and TCBI 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 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 TCBI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TCBI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TCBI +2
- 54 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- TCBI +5
- 48 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- TCBI +6
- 48 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- TCBI +1
- 62 vs 63
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when TCBI 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only SCHW
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.80%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only TCBI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.00%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
TCBI 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 +0.83%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.67%, 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.
- 1SCHW closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to TCBI's edge.
- 2SCHW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3TCBI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate TCBI'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 | TCBI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -4.1% | -9.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.2% | 13.3% |
| Gross margin | 86.9% | 62.4% |
| Operating margin | 44.3% | 24.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 28.1% | 10% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 0.23 |
Performance
TCBI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SCHW | TCBI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.3% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.4% | -3.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.8% | -11.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.2% | -12.4% |
| Year to date | -9% | 0.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.7% | 18.1% |
Technicals
TCBI has the stronger structure| Metric | SCHW | TCBI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.3 | 43 |
| ADX (14) | 37 | 28.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.7% | -2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.3% | -7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21% | 20.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SCHW | TCBI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.42 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.16 | 0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.2 | 0.72 |
| Max drawdown | -21.2% | -17.9% |
| Current drawdown | -20% | -15.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.4% | 25.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SCHW or TCBI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TCBI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against SCHW's 54. The edge comes from value and momentum. 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 SCHW or TCBI the better buy right now?
TCBI 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 TCBI over SCHW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SCHW leads Quality by 21 points; TCBI leads Value by 16 points; TCBI leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SCHW or TCBI?
Analyst price targets imply +32.6% upside for SCHW and +17.4% for TCBI, so the Street currently favors SCHW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TCBI. 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, SCHW or TCBI?
TCBI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TCBI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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 TCBI?
TCBI 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 TCBI?
TCBI on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, SCHW or TCBI?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is SCHW more profitable than TCBI?
SCHW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 86.9% vs 62.4%; operating margin 44.3% vs 24.8%; ttm roe 28.1% vs 10%.
Is TCBI's lead over SCHW getting stronger or weaker?
TCBI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when TCBI moved ahead of SCHW.
What would change the SCHW vs TCBI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SCHW closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to TCBI's edge; SCHW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; TCBI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate TCBI's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SCHW and TCBI?
SCHW: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. TCBI: 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 SCHW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TCBI it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SCHW and TCBI 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.