ACGL vs WTW Stock Comparison
Compare ACGL and WTW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ACGL and WTW?
ACGL leads the current stock comparison as Arch Capital Group Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arch Capital Group Ltd. vs Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company
ACGL leads
ACGL leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ACGL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Arch Capital Group Ltd.
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ACGL over WTW, 60 versus 52 as of Sep 6, 2026. ACGL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while WTW holds the stronger momentum profile. ACGL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACGL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ACGL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Arch Capital Group Ltd. and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ACGL and WTW 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.
- Value30%64 vs 38ACGL +26
- Momentum25%49 vs 59WTW +10
- Quality30%68 vs 60ACGL +8
- Risk Resilience15%56 vs 54Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ACGL. ACGL’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; WTW keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ACGL's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ACGL and WTW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ACGL (Arch Capital Group Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
WTW (Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 22.5% against 15.9%.
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
ACGLACGL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ACGLACGL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ACGLACGL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
WTWWTW on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
ACGLACGL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ACGLACGL 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 | ACGL | WTW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.6% | +3.7% | ACGL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.3% | +37.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACGL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ACGL | 60 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | ACGLon balance | revenue growth 2.5% vs 2.2%; EPS growth 5.9% vs -22.1%; TTM ROE 19.5% vs 20%; gross margin 46.2% vs 53.8%; operating margin 27.4% vs 22.2% — ACGL takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ACGL | Value 64 vs 38 |
| Technicals | WTW | Price vs 50-day -2% vs 5.9%; vs 200-day 2.1% vs 11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 56 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | ACGL | Target upside 14.6% vs 3.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ACGL and WTW 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 leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ACGL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5ACGL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ACGL +8
- 60 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- ACGL +8
- 60 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- ACGL +2
- 58 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- ACGL +10
- 68 vs 58
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when ACGL moved ahead of WTW.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.13%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.26%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
ACGL 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 -1.73%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.14%, 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.
- 1WTW closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACGL's edge.
- 2WTW generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ACGL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
ACGL leads on balance| Metric | ACGL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.5% | 2.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.9% | -22.1% |
| Gross margin | 46.2% | 53.8% |
| Operating margin | 27.4% | 22.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.5% | 20% |
| Debt to equity | 0.18 | 0.92 |
Performance
ACGL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ACGL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.4% | -2.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.6% | 27% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.9% | 10.5% |
| Year to date | 2.3% | 1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.6% | 2.3% |
Technicals
WTW has the stronger structure| Metric | ACGL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.2 | 56.8 |
| ADX (14) | 9.2 | 32 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | 5.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.1% | 11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.9% | 22.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ACGL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.31 | -0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | 0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.29 | 0.08 |
| Max drawdown | -14.1% | -30.8% |
| Current drawdown | -7.9% | -4.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 30.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ACGL or WTW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ACGL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 60 against WTW's 52. The edge comes from value and quality. WTW is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 ACGL or WTW the better buy right now?
ACGL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 ACGL over WTW?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ACGL leads Value by 26 points; WTW leads Momentum by 10 points; ACGL leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ACGL or WTW?
Analyst price targets imply +14.6% upside for ACGL and +3.7% for WTW, so the Street currently favors ACGL. 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, ACGL or WTW?
ACGL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ACGL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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, ACGL or WTW?
ACGL 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, ACGL or WTW?
WTW on the Momentum factor, by 10 points. 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, ACGL or WTW?
ACGL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ACGL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ACGL more profitable than WTW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 46.2% vs 53.8%; operating margin 27.4% vs 22.2%; ttm roe 19.5% vs 20%. Each name leads 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 ACGL's lead over WTW getting stronger or weaker?
ACGL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when ACGL moved ahead of WTW.
What would change the ACGL vs WTW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WTW closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACGL's edge; WTW generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; ACGL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 ACGL and WTW?
ACGL: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WTW: 3 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 ACGL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WTW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ACGL and WTW 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.