AFL vs WRB Stock Comparison
WRB currently leads AFL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 63. The clearest difference is quality, while AFL has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between AFL and WRB?
WRB leads the current stock comparison as W. R. Berkley Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Aflac Incorporated vs W. R. Berkley Corporation
WRB leads
WRB leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AFL on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support WRB, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Aflac Incorporated
W. R. Berkley Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WRB over AFL, 64 versus 63 as of Oct 31, 2026. WRB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while AFL holds the stronger momentum profile. WRB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AFL. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WRB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. WRB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Aflac Incorporated and W. R. Berkley 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 AFL and WRB 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.
- Momentum80 vs 60AFL +20
- Quality66 vs 83WRB +17
- Risk Resilience76 vs 59AFL +17
- Value41 vs 50WRB +9
1 of 6 evidence groups favor WRB. WRB’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; AFL keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
WRB's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AFL and WRB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WRB (W. R. Berkley Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
AFL (Aflac Incorporated): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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
WRBWRB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AFLAFL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WRBWRB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
AFLAFL on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
AFLAFL on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
AFLAFL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WRB, analyst targets favor AFL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AFL | WRB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.8% | -5.5% | AFL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.2% | +27.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 9 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AFL | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 15.68% | -4.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.120 | $0.209 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.320 | $0.170 |
| Years increased | 5 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (3) |
| Cohort rank | #31 | not ranked |
AFL grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.68% a year against WRB's -4.04%. AFL never reduced its regular dividend in the window; WRB did in 3 years. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WRB. 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 | 63 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -5.4% vs -45.3%; TTM ROE 16.4% vs 25.1%; gross margin 53.9% vs 61.9%; operating margin 32.2% vs 13.2% |
| Valuation | WRB | Value 41 vs 50 |
| Technicals | AFL | Price vs 50-day 6.4% vs 5%; vs 200-day 5.2% vs 3.6% |
| Risk Resilience | AFL | Risk Resilience 76 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | AFL | Target upside -2.8% vs -5.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AFL and WRB 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 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 WRB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28WRB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WRB +1
- 63 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- AFL +1
- 64 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- WRB +9
- 51 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- AFL +1
- 52 vs 51
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 24 when WRB 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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AFL
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only WRB
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
WRB 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.28%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.04%, 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 Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to WRB's edge.
- 2AFL's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3WRB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 WRB'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
Split| Metric | AFL | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -5.4% | -45.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -17.6% | -0.9% |
| Gross margin | 53.9% | 61.9% |
| Operating margin | 32.2% | 13.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.4% | 25.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0 |
Performance
AFL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AFL | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | -3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.2% | 6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.4% | -2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.8% | 7% |
| Year to date | 10.4% | 2.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.6% | -4.5% |
Technicals
AFL has the stronger structure| Metric | AFL | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.3 | 48.4 |
| ADX (14) | 25.6 | 29.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.4% | 5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.2% | 3.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.3% | 24.5% |
Risk
AFL is the more resilient| Metric | AFL | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.22 | -0.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | -0.18 |
| Max drawdown | -14.2% | -18.6% |
| Current drawdown | -6% | -8.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.5% | 22.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AFL or WRB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WRB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 64 against AFL's 63. The edge comes from quality and value. AFL 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 AFL or WRB the better buy right now?
WRB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 WRB over AFL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AFL leads Momentum by 20 points; WRB leads Quality by 17 points; AFL leads Risk Resilience by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AFL or WRB?
Analyst price targets imply -2.8% upside for AFL and -5.5% for WRB, so the Street currently favors AFL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WRB. 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, AFL or WRB?
WRB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WRB 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, AFL or WRB?
AFL 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, AFL or WRB?
AFL on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, AFL or WRB?
AFL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AFL on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 AFL more profitable than WRB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 53.9% vs 61.9%; operating margin 32.2% vs 13.2%; ttm roe 16.4% vs 25.1%. AFL leads on one measure and WRB 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 WRB's lead over AFL getting stronger or weaker?
WRB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-24, when WRB moved ahead of AFL.
What would change the AFL vs WRB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AFL closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to WRB's edge; AFL's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; WRB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 WRB's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AFL and WRB?
AFL: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. WRB: 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 AFL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WRB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AFL and WRB 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.