TFC vs USB Stock Comparison
USB currently leads TFC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 54. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between TFC and USB?
USB leads the current stock comparison as U.S. Bancorp, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Truist Financial Corporation vs U.S. Bancorp
USB leads
USB leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support USB, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Truist Financial Corporation
U.S. Bancorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USB over TFC, 57 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. USB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. USB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor USB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. USB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Truist Financial Corporation and U.S. Bancorp 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 TFC and USB 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.
- Momentum49 vs 56USB +7
- Quality51 vs 55USB +4
- Value58 vs 56Even
- Risk Resilience62 vs 64Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor USB. USB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
USB's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TFC and USB both carry a full feed there.
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
USBUSB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
USBUSB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
USBUSB on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
TFCTFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
USBUSB 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 | TFC | USB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.2% | +17.4% | USB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.4% | +17.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 15 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | TFC | USB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.93% | 3.96% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.800 | $1.680 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.080 | $2.040 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #286 |
USB grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 3.96% a year against TFC's 2.93%. USB never reduced its regular dividend in the window; TFC did in 1 year.
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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor USB. 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 57 |
| Fundamentals | USBon balance | revenue growth -19.7% vs 3%; TTM ROE 8.1% vs 12.6%; gross margin 65.3% vs 64.7%; operating margin 20.7% vs 24.4% — USB takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 58 vs 56 |
| Technicals | USB | Price vs 50-day -2.5% vs -2.6%; vs 200-day -4.5% vs 2.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | USB | Target upside 15.2% vs 17.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TFC and USB 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 USB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20USB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USB +3
- 54 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- USB +3
- 47 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- USB +4
- 56 vs 60
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TFC
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.26%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only USB
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.75%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
TFC 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.85%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.07%, 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.
- 1TFC closes the Momentum gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to USB's edge.
- 2TFC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3USB'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
USB leads on balance| Metric | TFC | USB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -19.7% | 3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -54% | -0.7% |
| Gross margin | 65.3% | 64.7% |
| Operating margin | 20.7% | 24.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.1% | 12.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.07 | 1.1 |
Performance
USB leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TFC | USB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | 3.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.5% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.5% | -8.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.3% | 4% |
| Year to date | -3.8% | 10.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.2% | 29.4% |
Technicals
USB has the stronger structure| Metric | TFC | USB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.8 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 25.3 | 32.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.5% | -2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.5% | 2.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.3% | 21% |
Risk
Split| Metric | TFC | USB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 0.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.4 | 1.09 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.54 | 1.58 |
| Max drawdown | -21.5% | -16.2% |
| Current drawdown | -15.2% | -9.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.3% | 22.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TFC or USB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, USB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against TFC's 54. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 TFC or USB the better buy right now?
USB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 USB over TFC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. USB leads Momentum by 7 points; USB leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TFC or USB?
Analyst price targets imply +15.2% upside for TFC and +17.4% for USB, so the Street currently favors USB. 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, TFC or USB?
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, TFC or USB?
USB 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, TFC or USB?
USB on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, TFC or USB?
TFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TFC 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 TFC more profitable than USB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 65.3% vs 64.7%; operating margin 20.7% vs 24.4%; ttm roe 8.1% vs 12.6%. TFC leads on one measure and USB 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 USB's lead over TFC getting stronger or weaker?
USB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the TFC vs USB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TFC closes the Momentum gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to USB's edge; TFC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; USB'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 TFC and USB?
TFC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. USB: 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 TFC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On USB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TFC and USB 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.