WBS vs WSFS Stock Comparison
Webster Financial Corporation vs WSFS Financial Corporation
WBS leads
WBS leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors WSFS on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support WBS.
Webster Financial Corporation
WSFS Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WBS over WSFS, 59 versus 58 as of Sep 5, 2026. WBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while WSFS holds the stronger quality profile. WBS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WSFS. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WBS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. WBS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Webster Financial Corporation and WSFS Financial Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare WBS and WSFS 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.
- Quality30%62 vs 70WSFS +8
- Risk Resilience15%69 vs 65WBS +4
- Value30%51 vs 51Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor WBS. WBS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; WSFS keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +16
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
WBS's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — WBS and WSFS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WBS (Webster Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
WSFS (WSFS Financial Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
WBSWBS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WBSWBS on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
WSFSWSFS 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 WSFS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | WBS | WSFS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2% | +2.6% | WSFS has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +13.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 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 | Even | 59 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | WSFSon balance | revenue growth 12.7% vs 3.9%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 11.7%; gross margin 62.5% vs 78.4%; operating margin 26.9% vs 31.3% — WSFS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 51 vs 51 |
| Technicals | WSFS | Price vs 50-day 1.4% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day 11.4% vs 15.8% |
| Risk Resilience | WBS | Risk Resilience 69 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | WSFS | Target upside -2% vs 2.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of WBS and WSFS 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 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4WBS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WBS +1
- 59 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- WBS +7
- 60 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- WBS +3
- 65 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 65 vs 65
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when WBS moved ahead of WSFS.
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.
No active signals
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.68%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
WSFS 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 +0.75%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1WSFS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to WBS's edge.
- 2WSFS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3WBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
WSFS leads on balance| Metric | WBS | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.7% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4% | -0.6% |
| Gross margin | 62.5% | 78.4% |
| Operating margin | 26.9% | 31.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.46 | 0.11 |
Performance
WSFS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | WBS | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | 1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.2% | -2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.2% | 10.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7% | 26% |
| Year to date | 23.2% | 43.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 34.9% | 38.5% |
Technicals
WSFS has the stronger structure| Metric | WBS | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.8 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.4% | 15.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.3% | 15.1% |
Risk
WBS is the more resilient| Metric | WBS | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.77 | 0.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.18 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.75 | 1.91 |
| Max drawdown | -14% | -13.8% |
| Current drawdown | -2% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.4% | 23.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, WBS or WSFS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WBS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 59 against WSFS's 58. The edge comes from risk resilience. WSFS is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 WBS or WSFS the better buy right now?
WBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 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 WBS over WSFS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WSFS leads Quality by 8 points; WBS leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, WBS or WSFS?
Analyst price targets imply -2% upside for WBS and +2.6% for WSFS, so the Street currently favors WSFS. 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, WBS or WSFS?
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, WBS or WSFS?
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, WBS or WSFS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, WBS or WSFS?
WBS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WBS on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 WBS more profitable than WSFS?
WSFS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 62.5% vs 78.4%; operating margin 26.9% vs 31.3%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 11.7%.
Is WBS's lead over WSFS getting stronger or weaker?
WBS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-05, when WBS moved ahead of WSFS.
What would change the WBS vs WSFS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WSFS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to WBS's edge; WSFS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; WBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about WBS and WSFS?
WBS: No active signals. WSFS: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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. On WSFS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare WBS and WSFS 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.