BRO vs CINF Stock Comparison
Compare BRO and CINF across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BRO and CINF?
CINF leads the current stock comparison as Cincinnati Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Brown & Brown, Inc. vs Cincinnati Financial Corporation
CINF leads
CINF leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 6 of 6 evidence groups support CINF, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Brown & Brown, Inc.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CINF over BRO, 60 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. CINF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. CINF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CINF today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. CINF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 18 points over 30 sessions. CINF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Brown & Brown, Inc. and Cincinnati Financial 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 BRO and CINF 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.
- Momentum24 vs 52CINF +28
- Risk Resilience51 vs 72CINF +21
- Quality57 vs 74CINF +17
- Value39 vs 48CINF +9
6 of 6 evidence groups favor CINF. CINF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
CINF's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BRO and CINF both carry a full feed there.
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
CINFCINF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CINFCINF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CINFCINF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
CINFCINF on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
CINFCINF on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
CINFCINF 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 | BRO | CINF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.5% | +13% | CINF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +48.3% | +13% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CINF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CINF | 42 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | CINFon balance | revenue growth -11.8% vs 49.3%; EPS growth -32.8% vs 3.6%; TTM ROE 9.6% vs 20.9%; gross margin 59% vs 52.3%; operating margin 28.5% vs 29.8% — CINF takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CINF | Value 39 vs 48 |
| Technicals | CINF | Price vs 50-day -5.7% vs -3.7%; vs 200-day -4.2% vs 1.3% |
| Risk Resilience | CINF | Risk Resilience 51 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | CINF | Target upside 9.5% vs 13% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BRO and CINF 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 18 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 6 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CINF.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CINF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CINF +18
- 42 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- CINF +5
- 55 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- CINF +3
- 53 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- CINF +12
- 56 vs 68
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when BRO moved ahead of CINF.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.37%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.35%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
BRO is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 down over the latest session (price -0.21%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.12%, 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.
- 1BRO closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to CINF's edge.
- 2BRO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CINF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
CINF leads on balance| Metric | BRO | CINF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -11.8% | 49.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -32.8% | 3.6% |
| Gross margin | 59% | 52.3% |
| Operating margin | 28.5% | 29.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.6% | 20.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 0.05 |
Performance
CINF leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BRO | CINF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.9% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.7% | -1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.2% | 1.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3% | 3.4% |
| Year to date | -16.8% | 3.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -30.4% | 10.5% |
Technicals
CINF has the stronger structure| Metric | BRO | CINF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.7 | 53.9 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 23.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.7% | -3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.2% | 1.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.5% | 15.7% |
Risk
CINF is the more resilient| Metric | BRO | CINF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.37 | -0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.08 | 0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.52 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -43.3% | -12.4% |
| Current drawdown | -30.9% | -11.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.1% | 20.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BRO or CINF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CINF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 60 against BRO's 42. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 BRO or CINF the better buy right now?
CINF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 6 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 CINF over BRO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CINF leads Momentum by 28 points; CINF leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; CINF leads Quality by 17 points. CINF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by BRO simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, BRO or CINF?
Analyst price targets imply +9.5% upside for BRO and +13% for CINF, so the Street currently favors CINF. 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, BRO or CINF?
CINF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CINF 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, BRO or CINF?
CINF 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, BRO or CINF?
CINF on the Momentum factor, by 28 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, BRO or CINF?
CINF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CINF on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 BRO more profitable than CINF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 59% vs 52.3%; operating margin 28.5% vs 29.8%; ttm roe 9.6% vs 20.9%. BRO leads on one measure and CINF 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 CINF's lead over BRO getting stronger or weaker?
CINF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 18 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when BRO moved ahead of CINF.
What would change the BRO vs CINF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BRO closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to CINF's edge; BRO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CINF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 BRO and CINF?
BRO: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. CINF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 BRO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CINF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BRO and CINF 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.