AFL vs WTW Stock Comparison
Compare AFL and WTW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AFL and WTW?
AFL leads the current stock comparison as Aflac Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Aflac Incorporated vs Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company
AFL leads
AFL leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors WTW on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support AFL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Aflac Incorporated
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AFL over WTW, 54 versus 52 as of Sep 6, 2026. AFL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while WTW holds the stronger momentum profile. AFL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WTW. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AFL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. AFL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Aflac Incorporated 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 AFL 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.
- Risk Resilience15%75 vs 54AFL +21
- Momentum25%39 vs 59WTW +20
- Quality30%66 vs 60AFL +6
- Value30%43 vs 38AFL +5
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AFL. AFL’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience 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.
AFL's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AFL and WTW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AFL (Aflac Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
WTW (Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals, analyst expectations.
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
AFLAFL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
WTWWTW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AFLAFL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
WTWWTW on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
AFLAFL on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
WTWWTW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AFL, analyst targets favor WTW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AFL | WTW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.9% | +3.7% | WTW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.6% | +37.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 11 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AFL. 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 52 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -5.4% vs 2.2%; EPS growth -17.6% vs -22.1%; TTM ROE 16.4% vs 20%; gross margin 53.9% vs 53.8%; operating margin 32.2% vs 22.2% |
| Valuation | AFL | Value 43 vs 38 |
| Technicals | WTW | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs 5.9%; vs 200-day 2.3% vs 11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | AFL | Risk Resilience 75 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | WTW | Target upside -0.9% vs 3.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AFL and WTW 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 AFL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5AFL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AFL +2
- 54 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 52 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- AFL +4
- 62 vs 58
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when WTW 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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.05%)
- 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
AFL 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 -0.97%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to AFL's edge.
- 2WTW generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3AFL'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
Split| Metric | AFL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -5.4% | 2.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -17.6% | -22.1% |
| Gross margin | 53.9% | 53.8% |
| Operating margin | 32.2% | 22.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.4% | 20% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.92 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AFL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.6% | -2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.9% | -2.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.9% | 27% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.3% | 10.5% |
| Year to date | 6.3% | 1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.8% | 2.3% |
Technicals
WTW has the stronger structure| Metric | AFL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39 | 56.8 |
| ADX (14) | 28 | 32 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | 5.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.3% | 11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.2% | 22.5% |
Risk
AFL is the more resilient| Metric | AFL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.17 | -0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.3 | 0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.47 | 0.08 |
| Max drawdown | -10.6% | -30.8% |
| Current drawdown | -9.5% | -4.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.3% | 30.1% |
| 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 WTW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AFL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 54 against WTW's 52. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 AFL or WTW the better buy right now?
AFL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AFL over WTW?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. AFL leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; WTW leads Momentum by 20 points; AFL leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AFL or WTW?
Analyst price targets imply -0.9% upside for AFL and +3.7% for WTW, so the Street currently favors WTW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AFL. 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 WTW?
AFL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AFL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 WTW?
WTW 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 WTW?
WTW on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, AFL or WTW?
AFL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AFL on Risk Resilience, by 21 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AFL more profitable than WTW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 53.9% vs 53.8%; operating margin 32.2% vs 22.2%; ttm roe 16.4% 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 AFL's lead over WTW getting stronger or weaker?
AFL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 2026-08-20, when WTW moved ahead of AFL.
What would change the AFL vs WTW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WTW closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to AFL's edge; WTW generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; AFL'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 AFL and WTW?
AFL: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 AFL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WTW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AFL 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.