USB vs WFC Stock Comparison
USB currently leads WFC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 56. The clearest difference is momentum, while WFC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between USB and WFC?
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
U.S. Bancorp vs Wells Fargo & Company
USB leads
USB leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support USB, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
U.S. Bancorp
Wells Fargo & Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USB over WFC, 57 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. USB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while WFC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. USB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor USB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. USB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare U.S. Bancorp 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 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.
- Risk Resilience64 vs 77WFC +13
- Momentum56 vs 49USB +7
- Quality55 vs 53Even
- Value56 vs 56Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor USB. USB’s edge is concentrated in momentum; WFC keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 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.
The lead changed hands: USB moved ahead of WFC in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — USB and WFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
USB (U.S. Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
WFC (Wells Fargo & Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
WFCWFC on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 | +17.4% | +17.9% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +17.3% | +12.3% | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | USB | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 3.96% | 6.86% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.680 | $1.220 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.040 | $1.700 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #286 | not ranked |
WFC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.86% a year against USB's 3.96%. USB never reduced its regular dividend in the window; WFC did in 1 year. 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
2 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 | 57 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | USB | TTM ROE 12.6% vs 12.9%; gross margin 64.7% vs 63.9%; operating margin 24.4% vs 21.1% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 56 vs 56 |
| Technicals | USB | Price vs 50-day -2.6% vs -3%; vs 200-day 2.1% vs -2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | WFC | Risk Resilience 64 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 17.4% vs 17.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of USB 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 1 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'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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USB +1
- 57 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- USB +2
- 50 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- USB +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- USB +5
- 60 vs 55
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 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.
USB and WFC carry the same 3 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -0.07%, 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.
- 1WFC closes the Momentum gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to USB's edge.
- 2WFC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3USB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate USB'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
USB leads on balance| Metric | USB | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3% | -1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -0.7% | -6.4% |
| Gross margin | 64.7% | 63.9% |
| Operating margin | 24.4% | 21.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.6% | 12.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.1 | 1.26 |
Performance
USB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | USB | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.9% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.3% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4% | 0.8% |
| Year to date | 10.7% | -11.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 29.4% | -2.1% |
Technicals
USB has the stronger structure| Metric | USB | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.4 | 57.5 |
| ADX (14) | 32.1 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.6% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.1% | -2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21% | 24.7% |
Risk
WFC is the more resilient| Metric | USB | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.65 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.09 | -0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.58 | -0.1 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -9.7% | -14.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.4% | 25.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, USB or WFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, USB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against WFC's 56. The edge comes from momentum. WFC is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 USB or WFC the better buy right now?
USB 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor USB over WFC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WFC leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; USB leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, USB or WFC?
Analyst price targets imply +17.4% upside for USB and +17.9% for 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, 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?
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, USB or WFC?
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, USB or WFC?
WFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WFC on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 USB more profitable than WFC?
USB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 64.7% vs 63.9%; operating margin 24.4% vs 21.1%; ttm roe 12.6% vs 12.9%.
Is USB's lead over WFC getting stronger or weaker?
USB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 1 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when USB moved ahead of WFC.
What would change the USB vs WFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WFC closes the Momentum gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to USB's edge; WFC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; USB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate USB's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about USB and WFC?
USB: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. WFC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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
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.