AFG vs AFL Stock Comparison
Compare AFG and AFL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AFG and AFL?
AFG leads the current stock comparison as American Financial Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
American Financial Group, Inc. vs Aflac Incorporated
AFG leads
AFG leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AFG, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
American Financial Group, Inc.
Aflac Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AFG over AFL, 54 versus 53 as of Sep 11, 2026. AFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while AFL holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AFG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AFG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. AFG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare American Financial Group, Inc. and Aflac Incorporated 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 AFG and AFL 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.
- Value59 vs 43AFG +16
- Risk Resilience63 vs 75AFL +12
- Quality56 vs 66AFL +10
- Momentum41 vs 36AFG +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AFG. AFG’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; AFL keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: AFG moved ahead of AFL in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AFG and AFL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AFG (American Financial Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
AFL (Aflac Incorporated): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality — but at materially higher volatility, 20.7% against 13.5%.
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
AFGAFG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AFGAFG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AFGAFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
AFGAFG on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
AFLAFL on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
AFGAFG 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 | AFG | AFL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.3% | +0.8% | AFG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +10.8% | +33.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 7 | 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 AFG. 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 | 54 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | AFGon balance | revenue growth 8.5% vs -5.4%; EPS growth 30.6% vs -17.6%; TTM ROE 20% vs 16.4%; gross margin 26% vs 53.9%; operating margin 14.7% vs 32.2% — AFG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AFG | Value 59 vs 43 |
| Technicals | AFG | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -4.9%; vs 200-day 5% vs 0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | AFL | Risk Resilience 63 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | AFG | Target upside 4.3% vs 0.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AFG and AFL 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)
- 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 AFG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AFG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AFG +1
- 54 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- AFL +1
- 53 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- AFG +9
- 60 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- AFG +1
- 64 vs 63
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when AFG moved ahead of AFL.
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 (6.02%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.76%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
AFG 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 up over the latest session (price +0.22%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.71%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1AFL closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to AFG's edge.
- 2AFL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3AFG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate AFG'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
AFG leads on balance| Metric | AFG | AFL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.5% | -5.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 30.6% | -17.6% |
| Gross margin | 26% | 53.9% |
| Operating margin | 14.7% | 32.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20% | 16.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.38 | 0.29 |
Performance
AFG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AFG | AFL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.2% | -5.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7% | -2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.3% | 4.7% |
| Year to date | 3.6% | 3.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.9% | 7.6% |
Technicals
AFG has the stronger structure| Metric | AFG | AFL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43 | 43.7 |
| ADX (14) | 11.5 | 29 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -4.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5% | 0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.5% | 20.7% |
Risk
AFL is the more resilient| Metric | AFG | AFL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.07 | -0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.01 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.02 | 0.44 |
| Max drawdown | -16.5% | -11.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -11.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.1% | 17.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AFG or AFL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AFG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against AFL's 53. The edge comes from value and momentum. AFL is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 AFG or AFL the better buy right now?
AFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 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 AFG over AFL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AFG leads Value by 16 points; AFL leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; AFL leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AFG or AFL?
Analyst price targets imply +4.3% upside for AFG and +0.8% for AFL, so the Street currently favors AFG. 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, AFG or AFL?
AFG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, AFG or AFL?
AFG 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, AFG or AFL?
AFG 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, AFG or AFL?
AFL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AFL on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 AFG more profitable than AFL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 26% vs 53.9%; operating margin 14.7% vs 32.2%; ttm roe 20% vs 16.4%. AFG leads on one measure and AFL on two measures, 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 AFG's lead over AFL getting stronger or weaker?
AFG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when AFG moved ahead of AFL.
What would change the AFG vs AFL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AFL closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to AFG's edge; AFL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; AFG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate AFG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AFG and AFL?
AFG: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. AFL: 1 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 AFG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On AFL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AFG and AFL 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.