AAPL vs PFG Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads PFG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 59. The clearest difference is quality, while PFG has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AAPL and PFG?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Principal Financial Group, Inc.
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Principal Financial Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over PFG, 62 versus 59 as of Oct 31, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while PFG holds the stronger value profile. AAPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. AAPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apple Inc. and Principal Financial Group, Inc. 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 PFG 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.
- Quality80 vs 60AAPL +20
- Value38 vs 56PFG +18
- Momentum65 vs 60AAPL +5
- Risk Resilience68 vs 63AAPL +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; PFG keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
AAPL's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and PFG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
PFG (Principal Financial Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 20.5% against 14.6%.
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
AAPLAAPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PFGPFG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFGPFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
AAPLAAPL on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 | AAPL | PFG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | -2.4% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +45.7% | +38.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AAPL | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.99% | 6.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.808 | $2.240 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.030 | $3.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #254 | #198 |
PFG grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.58% 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 AAPL. 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 | 62 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | AAPLon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs 10.7%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 13%; gross margin 48.7% vs 48.5%; operating margin 33.2% vs 12.1% — AAPL takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PFG | Value 38 vs 56 |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 3.5% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day 16.2% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 68 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside -1.7% vs -2.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and PFG 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 3 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)
- 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 AAPL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30AAPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +3
- 62 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +10
- 65 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +8
- 60 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +10
- 65 vs 55
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when AAPL moved ahead of PFG.
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
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.7%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only PFG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
AAPL 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.23%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.78%, 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.
- 1PFG closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2PFG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate AAPL'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
AAPL leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | -4.7% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 48.5% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 12.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 13% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.36 |
Performance
AAPL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.3% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.6% | -3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23% | 10.4% |
| Year to date | 26.8% | 26.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28% | 35.4% |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.9 | 61.4 |
| ADX (14) | 19.6 | 21 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.5% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.2% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.6% | 20.5% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.57 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.95 | 1.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.29 | 2.12 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -12.8% |
| Current drawdown | -1.2% | -5.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.1% | 22.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or PFG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against PFG's 59. The edge comes from quality and momentum. PFG 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 AAPL or PFG the better buy right now?
AAPL 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AAPL over PFG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Quality by 20 points; PFG leads Value by 18 points; AAPL leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or PFG?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for AAPL and -2.4% for PFG. 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 PFG?
PFG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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 PFG?
PFG 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 PFG?
AAPL on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 PFG?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 AAPL more profitable than PFG?
AAPL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 48.7% vs 48.5%; operating margin 33.2% vs 12.1%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 13%.
Is AAPL's lead over PFG getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when AAPL moved ahead of PFG.
What would change the AAPL vs PFG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PFG closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; PFG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate AAPL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AAPL and PFG?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PFG: 2 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 AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PFG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and PFG 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.