USB vs WFC Stock Comparison
Compare USB and WFC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between USB and WFC?
USB and WFC are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
U.S. Bancorp vs Wells Fargo & Company
USB and WFC are effectively level
USB and WFC are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
U.S. Bancorp
Wells Fargo & Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate USB and WFC as of Sep 6, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Company across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare USB 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.
- Momentum25%54 vs 72WFC +18
- Risk Resilience15%77 vs 63USB +14
- Quality30%50 vs 42USB +8
- Value30%56 vs 56Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — USB 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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
WFCWFC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WFCWFC on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
USBUSB on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | USB | WFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7% | +7.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +22.1% | +20.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | WFCon balance | EPS growth 14.4% vs 24.7%; TTM ROE 12.5% vs 12.6%; gross margin 63.8% vs 64.5%; operating margin 23.9% vs 21.2% — WFC takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 56 vs 56 |
| Technicals | USB | Price vs 50-day 0.5% vs 3.8%; vs 200-day 11.7% vs 5.1% |
| Risk Resilience | USB | Risk Resilience 77 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 7% vs 7.8% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5USB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- WFC +3
- 51 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- USB +7
- 62 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- USB +6
- 62 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when USB moved ahead of WFC.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.95%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
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 -0.25%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.87%, AIQ 0 points).
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 | USB | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.8% | 5.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.4% | 24.7% |
| Gross margin | 63.8% | 64.5% |
| Operating margin | 23.9% | 21.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.5% | 12.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.42 | 2.55 |
Performance
USB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | USB | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | 3.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | 3.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.8% | 9.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 21% | 11.9% |
| Year to date | 18.8% | -3.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.6% | 11.8% |
Technicals
USB has the stronger structure| Metric | USB | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41 | 60.7 |
| ADX (14) | 15.6 | 15.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.5% | 3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.7% | 5.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.6% | 19.7% |
Risk
USB is the more resilient| Metric | USB | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.08 | 0.34 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 0.49 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -3.1% | -6.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.3% | 26.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, USB or WFC?
Analyst price targets imply +7% upside for USB and +7.8% for WFC. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, USB 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, USB 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, USB or WFC?
WFC on the Momentum factor, by 18 points. 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, USB or WFC?
USB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. USB on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 USB more profitable than WFC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.8% vs 64.5%; operating margin 23.9% vs 21.2%; ttm roe 12.5% vs 12.6%. 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.
What do the current signals say about USB and WFC?
USB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WFC: 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 USB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare USB and WFC 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.