BRO vs EG Stock Comparison
Compare BRO and EG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BRO and EG?
EG leads the current stock comparison as Everest Group, Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Brown & Brown, Inc. vs Everest Group, Ltd.
EG leads
EG leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from BRO. Wall Street currently favors BRO on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EG, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Brown & Brown, Inc.
Everest Group, Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EG over BRO, 56 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. EG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while BRO holds the stronger quality profile. EG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BRO. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. EG lead: Reversed — BRO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EG now leads by 14.
Compare Brown & Brown, Inc. and Everest Group, Ltd. 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 EG 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.
- Value39 vs 70EG +31
- Momentum24 vs 48EG +24
- Quality57 vs 52BRO +5
- Risk Resilience51 vs 52Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EG. EG’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; BRO keeps a meaningful quality 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 -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
EG'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 EG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EG (Everest Group, Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
BRO (Brown & Brown, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 30.5% against 19.6%.
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
EGEG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EGEG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EGEG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
EGEG on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
EGEG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
BROBRO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EG, analyst targets favor BRO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BRO | EG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.5% | +4.6% | BRO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +48.3% | +37% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 8 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EG | 42 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | EGon balance | revenue growth -11.8% vs -2.6%; EPS growth -32.8% vs -14.4%; TTM ROE 9.6% vs 12.4%; gross margin 59% vs 28.8%; operating margin 28.5% vs 15.4% — EG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EG | Value 39 vs 70 |
| Technicals | EG | Price vs 50-day -5.7% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -4.2% vs 8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 51 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | BRO | Target upside 9.5% vs 4.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BRO and EG 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 EG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EG lead: Reversed — BRO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EG now leads by 14.
- Today
- EG +14
- 42 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- EG +9
- 55 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- BRO +1
- 53 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- EG +11
- 56 vs 67
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when EG moved ahead of BRO.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.86%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
EG 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 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 +0.18%, 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 Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to EG's edge.
- 2BRO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3EG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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
EG leads on balance| Metric | BRO | EG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -11.8% | -2.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -32.8% | -14.4% |
| Gross margin | 59% | 28.8% |
| Operating margin | 28.5% | 15.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.6% | 12.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 0.23 |
Performance
EG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BRO | EG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.9% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.7% | 2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.2% | 10.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3% | 15.4% |
| Year to date | -16.8% | 9.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -30.4% | 9.3% |
Technicals
EG has the stronger structure| Metric | BRO | EG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.7 | 52.5 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 14.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.7% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.2% | 8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.5% | 19.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BRO | EG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.37 | -0.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.08 | 0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.52 | 0.37 |
| Max drawdown | -43.3% | -16.4% |
| Current drawdown | -30.9% | -6.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.1% | 25% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BRO or EG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against BRO's 42. The edge comes from value and momentum. BRO is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 BRO or EG the better buy right now?
EG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EG over BRO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EG leads Value by 31 points; EG leads Momentum by 24 points; BRO leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BRO or EG?
Analyst price targets imply +9.5% upside for BRO and +4.6% for EG, so the Street currently favors BRO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EG. 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, BRO or EG?
EG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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 EG?
EG 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 EG?
EG on the Momentum factor, by 24 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 EG?
EG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 EG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 59% vs 28.8%; operating margin 28.5% vs 15.4%; ttm roe 9.6% vs 12.4%. BRO leads on two measures and EG 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 EG's lead over BRO getting stronger or weaker?
EG lead: Reversed — BRO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EG now leads by 14. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when EG moved ahead of BRO.
What would change the BRO vs EG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BRO closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to EG's edge; BRO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; EG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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 BRO and EG?
BRO: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. EG: 2 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 BRO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BRO and EG 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.