ARES vs TROW Stock Comparison
TROW currently leads ARES in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 40. The clearest difference is quality, while ARES has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ARES and TROW?
TROW leads the current stock comparison as T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ares Management Corporation vs T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
TROW leads
TROW leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 30 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ARES on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support TROW, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Ares Management Corporation
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TROW over ARES, 63 versus 40 as of Oct 24, 2026. TROW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while ARES holds the stronger momentum profile. TROW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ARES. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TROW today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. TROW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 30 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ares Management Corporation and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. 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 ARES and TROW 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 80TROW +37
- Risk Resilience40 vs 71TROW +31
- Value24 vs 52TROW +28
- Momentum54 vs 50ARES +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor TROW. TROW’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; ARES keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
TROW's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARES and TROW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TROW (T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ARES (Ares Management Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 32.6% against 19.8%.
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
TROWTROW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TROWTROW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TROWTROW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
ARESARES on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
TROWTROW on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
ARESARES on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TROW, analyst targets favor ARES. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ARES | TROW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.1% | +5.3% | ARES has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.5% | +29.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 6 | 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 | ARES | TROW |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 22.87% | 7.13% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.600 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.480 | $5.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #8 | #185 |
ARES grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 22.87% a year against TROW's 7.13%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TROW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TROW | 40 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | TROW | revenue growth -6.8% vs 2.7%; EPS growth -5.8% vs 29.1%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 20.4%; gross margin 62.7% vs 70.7%; operating margin 23.2% vs 30.3% |
| Valuation | TROW | Value 24 vs 52 |
| Technicals | TROW | Price vs 50-day -4.4% vs -2%; vs 200-day -3.1% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | TROW | Risk Resilience 40 vs 71 |
| Analyst expectations | ARES | Target upside 19.1% vs 5.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARES and TROW and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 TROW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23TROW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 30 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TROW +23
- 40 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- TROW +25
- 33 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- TROW +30
- 32 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- TROW +19
- 43 vs 62
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 / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only TROW
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -1.31%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.72%, AIQ +3 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 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to TROW's edge.
- 2ARES generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3TROW's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 23-point move would eliminate TROW'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
TROW leads on balance| Metric | ARES | TROW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.8% | 2.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.8% | 29.1% |
| Gross margin | 62.7% | 70.7% |
| Operating margin | 23.2% | 30.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 20.4% |
| Debt to equity | 3.75 | 0.04 |
Performance
ARES leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ARES | TROW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.7% | 3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.1% | -1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.4% | -12.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.9% | 5.2% |
| Year to date | -24.5% | 1.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.7% | 0% |
Technicals
TROW has the stronger structure| Metric | ARES | TROW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.2 | 50.9 |
| ADX (14) | 28.4 | 29.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.4% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.1% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.6% | 19.8% |
Risk
TROW is the more resilient| Metric | ARES | TROW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.66 | 0.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.35 | 0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.51 | 0.02 |
| Max drawdown | -45.9% | -20.9% |
| Current drawdown | -31.5% | -14.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.3% | 23.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARES or TROW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TROW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 24, 2026, scoring 63 against ARES's 40. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. ARES 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 ARES or TROW the better buy right now?
TROW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 24, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TROW over ARES?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TROW leads Quality by 37 points; TROW leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; TROW leads Value by 28 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARES or TROW?
Analyst price targets imply +19.1% upside for ARES and +5.3% for TROW, so the Street currently favors ARES. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TROW. 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, ARES or TROW?
TROW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TROW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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 TROW?
TROW 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 TROW?
ARES 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 TROW?
TROW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TROW on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 TROW?
TROW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 62.7% vs 70.7%; operating margin 23.2% vs 30.3%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 20.4%.
Is TROW's lead over ARES getting stronger or weaker?
TROW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 30 to 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-24 and 2026-10-23. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ARES vs TROW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ARES closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to TROW's edge; ARES generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; TROW's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 23-point move would eliminate TROW's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ARES and TROW?
ARES: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. TROW: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on ARES is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TROW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ARES and TROW 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.