ARES vs TRI Stock Comparison
Compare ARES and TRI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ARES and TRI?
TRI leads the current stock comparison as Thomson Reuters Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ares Management Corporation vs Thomson Reuters Corporation
TRI leads
TRI leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TRI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ares Management Corporation
Thomson Reuters Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TRI over ARES, 44 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. TRI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while ARES holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TRI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TRI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TRI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ares Management Corporation and Thomson Reuters Corporation 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 ARES and TRI 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.
- Quality43 vs 70TRI +27
- Value24 vs 43TRI +19
- Risk Resilience39 vs 25ARES +14
- Momentum21 vs 25TRI +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TRI. TRI’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; ARES 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 -22
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.53%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
TRI's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARES and TRI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TRI (Thomson Reuters Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
ARES (Ares Management Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
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
TRITRI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TRITRI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TRITRI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
TRITRI on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
ARESARES on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
TRITRI 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 | ARES | TRI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12% | +36.2% | TRI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.1% | +73.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 4 | 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 TRI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TRI | 31 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | TRIon balance | revenue growth -6.8% vs -6.4%; EPS growth -5.8% vs -1.9%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 14.3%; gross margin 62.7% vs 66.5%; operating margin 23.2% vs 27.6% — TRI takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TRI | Value 24 vs 43 |
| Technicals | ARES | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day -1.8% vs -6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | ARES | Risk Resilience 39 vs 25 |
| Analyst expectations | TRI | Target upside 12% vs 36.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARES and TRI 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 TRI.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TRI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TRI +13
- 31 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- TRI +14
- 41 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- TRI +8
- 45 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- TRI +26
- 32 vs 58
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.41%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.87%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
TRI 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 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.77%, AIQ -6 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.71%, 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.
- 1ARES closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to TRI's edge.
- 2ARES's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TRI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
TRI leads on balance| Metric | ARES | TRI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.8% | -6.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.8% | -1.9% |
| Gross margin | 62.7% | 66.5% |
| Operating margin | 23.2% | 27.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 14.3% |
| Debt to equity | 3.75 | 0.29 |
Performance
ARES leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ARES | TRI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -9.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.2% | -6.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.8% | 16.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 26.3% | -8.6% |
| Year to date | -19.2% | -28.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -25.9% | -45.7% |
Technicals
ARES has the stronger structure| Metric | ARES | TRI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.8 | 36.6 |
| ADX (14) | 22.5 | 26.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.8% | -6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.9% | 51.4% |
Risk
ARES is the more resilient| Metric | ARES | TRI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.72 | 0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.53 | -1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | -1.59 |
| Max drawdown | -47.8% | -57.1% |
| Current drawdown | -29.3% | -46.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.4% | 49.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARES or TRI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TRI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against ARES's 31. The edge comes from quality and value. ARES 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 ARES or TRI the better buy right now?
TRI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 TRI over ARES?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TRI leads Quality by 27 points; TRI leads Value by 19 points; ARES leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARES or TRI?
Analyst price targets imply +12% upside for ARES and +36.2% for TRI, so the Street currently favors TRI. 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, ARES or TRI?
TRI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TRI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, ARES or TRI?
TRI 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, ARES or TRI?
TRI on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, ARES or TRI?
ARES is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ARES on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 ARES more profitable than TRI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 62.7% vs 66.5%; operating margin 23.2% vs 27.6%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 14.3%. ARES leads on one measure and TRI 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 TRI's lead over ARES getting stronger or weaker?
TRI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ARES vs TRI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ARES closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to TRI's edge; ARES's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TRI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ARES and TRI?
ARES: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TRI: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 ARES is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TRI it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ARES and TRI 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.