WAFD vs WBS Stock Comparison
WBS currently leads WAFD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 50. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while WAFD has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between WAFD and WBS?
WBS leads the current stock comparison as Webster Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
WaFd, Inc. vs Webster Financial Corporation
WBS leads
WBS leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors WAFD on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support WBS.
WaFd, Inc.
Webster Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WBS over WAFD, 58 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. WBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while WAFD holds the stronger value profile. WBS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WAFD. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WBS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability. WBS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare WaFd, Inc. and Webster Financial Corporation 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 WAFD and WBS 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.
- Value64 vs 49WAFD +15
- Risk Resilience56 vs 69WBS +13
- Quality50 vs 62WBS +12
4 of 6 evidence groups favor WBS. WBS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; WAFD keeps a meaningful value 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
WBS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — WAFD and WBS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WBS (Webster Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
WAFD (WaFd, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 23.7% against 14.3%.
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
WBSWBS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WBSWBS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WAFDWAFD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WBSWBS on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
WAFDWAFD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WBS, analyst targets favor WAFD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | WAFD | WBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27% | -2% | WAFD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.2% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 1 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | WAFD | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.18% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.880 | $1.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $1.600 |
| Years increased | 5 | 0 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #279 | #349 |
WAFD grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.18% a year against WBS's 0.00%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WBS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WBS | 50 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | WBS | revenue growth 4.6% vs 12.7%; EPS growth -14.6% vs 4%; TTM ROE 8.5% vs 10.7%; gross margin 54.7% vs 62.5%; operating margin 23.1% vs 26.9% |
| Valuation | WAFD | Value 64 vs 49 |
| Technicals | WBS | Price vs 50-day -14.5% vs 1.4%; vs 200-day -16% vs 11.4% |
| Risk Resilience | WBS | Risk Resilience 56 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | WAFD | Target upside 27% vs -2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of WAFD and WBS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 WBS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WBS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WBS +8
- 50 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- WBS +9
- 50 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- WBS +10
- 49 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- WBS +1
- 62 vs 63
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 WAFD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.84%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
WAFD 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.94%, 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.
- 1WAFD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to WBS's edge.
- 2WAFD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
WBS leads on balance| Metric | WAFD | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.6% | 12.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -14.6% | 4% |
| Gross margin | 54.7% | 62.5% |
| Operating margin | 23.1% | 26.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.5% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.85 | 0.46 |
Performance
WBS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | WAFD | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.5% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.2% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -22.1% | 8.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17.4% | 7% |
| Year to date | -8.9% | 23.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.8% | 34.9% |
Technicals
WBS has the stronger structure| Metric | WAFD | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.5 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 43.7 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.5% | 1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16% | 11.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.7% | 14.3% |
Risk
WBS is the more resilient| Metric | WAFD | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.52 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.04 | 1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.05 | 1.56 |
| Max drawdown | -27.7% | -13.2% |
| Current drawdown | -27.2% | -2% |
| Annualized volatility | 24% | 23.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, WAFD or WBS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WBS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against WAFD's 50. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. WAFD is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 WAFD or WBS the better buy right now?
WBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WBS over WAFD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WAFD leads Value by 15 points; WBS leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; WBS leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, WAFD or WBS?
Analyst price targets imply +27% upside for WAFD and -2% for WBS, so the Street currently favors WAFD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WBS. 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, WAFD or WBS?
WAFD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WAFD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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, WAFD or WBS?
WBS 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, WAFD or WBS?
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, WAFD or WBS?
WBS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WBS 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 WAFD more profitable than WBS?
WBS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 54.7% vs 62.5%; operating margin 23.1% vs 26.9%; ttm roe 8.5% vs 10.7%.
Is WBS's lead over WAFD getting stronger or weaker?
WBS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 WAFD vs WBS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WAFD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to WBS's edge; WAFD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 WAFD and WBS?
WAFD: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WBS: No active signals. 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 WAFD is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare WAFD and WBS 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.