AAPL vs CINF Stock Comparison
CINF currently leads AAPL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 62. The clearest difference is momentum, while AAPL has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AAPL and CINF?
CINF leads the current stock comparison as Cincinnati Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Cincinnati Financial Corporation
CINF leads
CINF leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from AAPL.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CINF, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CINF over AAPL, 68 versus 62 as of Oct 31, 2026. CINF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while AAPL holds the stronger quality profile. CINF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CINF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CINF lead: Reversed — AAPL led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CINF now leads by 6.
Compare Apple Inc. and Cincinnati 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 AAPL and CINF 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.
- Momentum65 vs 84CINF +19
- Value38 vs 47CINF +9
- Quality80 vs 74AAPL +6
- Risk Resilience69 vs 71Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CINF. CINF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; AAPL keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
CINF's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and CINF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CINF (Cincinnati Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, technicals.
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
CINFCINF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CINFCINF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CINFCINF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
CINFCINF on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CINFCINF 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 | AAPL | CINF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | +6.1% | CINF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +45.7% | +13% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AAPL | CINF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.99% | 7.71% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.808 | $2.400 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.030 | $3.480 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #254 | #151 |
CINF grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.71% a year against AAPL's 4.99%. 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CINF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CINF | 62 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -1.6% vs 49.3%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 20.9%; gross margin 48.7% vs 52.3%; operating margin 33.2% vs 29.8% |
| Valuation | CINF | Value 38 vs 47 |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs 7.3%; vs 200-day 16.3% vs 6.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 69 vs 71 |
| Analyst expectations | CINF | Target upside -1.7% vs 6.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and CINF 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 moderate at 6 points.
- 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 is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 CINF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CINF lead: Reversed — AAPL led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CINF now leads by 6.
- Today
- CINF +6
- 62 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- CINF +3
- 65 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +6
- 60 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +6
- 61 vs 55
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when AAPL moved ahead of CINF.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AAPL
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only CINF
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
CINF leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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 down over the latest session (price -1.23%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.37%, 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.
- 1AAPL closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to CINF's edge.
- 2AAPL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CINF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
Split| Metric | AAPL | CINF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 49.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 3.6% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 52.3% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 29.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 20.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.05 |
Performance
AAPL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | CINF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | 3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.2% | 12.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | 2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.3% | 9.9% |
| Year to date | 26.5% | 9.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.8% | 14.5% |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | CINF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.7 | 74.7 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 33.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | 7.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.3% | 6.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.6% | 19.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AAPL | CINF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.56 | -0.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.73 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 1.11 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -17% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -6.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 24% | 20.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or CINF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CINF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 68 against AAPL's 62. The edge comes from momentum and value. AAPL 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 AAPL or CINF the better buy right now?
CINF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CINF over AAPL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CINF leads Momentum by 19 points; CINF leads Value by 9 points; AAPL leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or CINF?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for AAPL and +6.1% for CINF, so the Street currently favors CINF. 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, AAPL or CINF?
CINF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CINF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, AAPL or CINF?
CINF 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, AAPL or CINF?
CINF on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, AAPL or CINF?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AAPL more profitable than CINF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 52.3%; operating margin 33.2% vs 29.8%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 20.9%. AAPL leads on two measures and CINF 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 CINF's lead over AAPL getting stronger or weaker?
CINF lead: Reversed — AAPL led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CINF now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when AAPL moved ahead of CINF.
What would change the AAPL vs CINF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AAPL closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to CINF's edge; AAPL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; CINF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 AAPL and CINF?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CINF: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, 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. The most decision-relevant rule on AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CINF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and CINF 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.