TFC vs WFC Stock Comparison
WFC currently leads TFC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 54. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between TFC and WFC?
WFC leads the current stock comparison as Wells Fargo & Company, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Truist Financial Corporation vs Wells Fargo & Company
WFC leads
WFC leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from TFC.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support WFC, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Truist Financial Corporation
Wells Fargo & Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WFC over TFC, 56 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. WFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. WFC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WFC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. WFC lead: Reversed — TFC led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WFC now leads by 2.
Compare Truist 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 TFC 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 Resilience62 vs 77WFC +15
- Quality51 vs 53Even
- Value58 vs 56Even
- Momentum49 vs 49Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor WFC. WFC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
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 +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.
WFC's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TFC and WFC 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
WFCWFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WFCWFC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WFCWFC on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
WFCWFC 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 | WFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.2% | +17.9% | WFC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.4% | +12.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | TFC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.93% | 6.86% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.800 | $1.220 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.080 | $1.700 |
| Years increased | 3 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
WFC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.86% a year against TFC's 2.93%. 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WFC. 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 | WFCon balance | EPS growth -54% vs -6.4%; TTM ROE 8.1% vs 12.9%; gross margin 65.3% vs 63.9%; operating margin 20.7% vs 21.1% — WFC takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 58 vs 56 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.5% vs -3%; vs 200-day -4.5% vs -2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | WFC | Risk Resilience 62 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | WFC | Target upside 15.2% vs 17.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TFC 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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 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 WFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WFC lead: Reversed — TFC led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WFC now leads by 2.
- Today
- WFC +2
- 54 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- TFC +2
- 50 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- TFC +4
- 47 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- TFC +1
- 56 vs 55
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when WFC moved ahead of TFC.
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 WFC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.12%)
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 +0.27%, 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.
- 1TFC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to WFC's edge.
- 2TFC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WFC'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
WFC leads on balance| Metric | TFC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -19.7% | -1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -54% | -6.4% |
| Gross margin | 65.3% | 63.9% |
| Operating margin | 20.7% | 21.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.1% | 12.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.07 | 1.26 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | TFC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.5% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.5% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.3% | 0.8% |
| Year to date | -3.8% | -11.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.2% | -2.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | TFC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.8 | 57.5 |
| ADX (14) | 25.3 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.5% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.5% | -2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.3% | 24.7% |
Risk
WFC is the more resilient| Metric | TFC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.4 | -0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.54 | -0.1 |
| Max drawdown | -21.5% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -15.2% | -14.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.3% | 25.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TFC or WFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WFC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against TFC's 54. The edge comes from risk resilience. 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 WFC the better buy right now?
WFC 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WFC over TFC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WFC leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TFC or WFC?
Analyst price targets imply +15.2% upside for TFC and +17.9% for WFC, so the Street currently favors 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, TFC 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, TFC or WFC?
WFC 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 WFC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 WFC?
WFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WFC on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 TFC more profitable than WFC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 65.3% vs 63.9%; operating margin 20.7% vs 21.1%; ttm roe 8.1% vs 12.9%. Each name leads 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 WFC's lead over TFC getting stronger or weaker?
WFC lead: Reversed — TFC led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WFC now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-17, when WFC moved ahead of TFC.
What would change the TFC vs WFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TFC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to WFC's edge; TFC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WFC'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 WFC?
TFC: 1 bullish / 2 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 TFC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TFC 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.