CB vs CRBG Stock Comparison
Compare CB and CRBG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CB and CRBG?
CRBG leads the current stock comparison as Corebridge Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chubb Limited vs Corebridge Financial, Inc.
CRBG leads
CRBG leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CRBG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Chubb Limited
Corebridge Financial, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRBG over CB, 67 versus 54 as of Sep 11, 2026. CRBG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while CB holds the stronger quality profile. CRBG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRBG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CRBG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Chubb Limited and Corebridge Financial, Inc. 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 CB and CRBG 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.
- Momentum43 vs 79CRBG +36
- Risk Resilience59 vs 78CRBG +19
- Value56 vs 67CRBG +11
- Quality59 vs 52CB +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CRBG. CRBG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; CB 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 -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CRBG's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CB and CRBG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRBG (Corebridge Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
CB (Chubb Limited): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals.
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
CRBGCRBG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CRBGCRBG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRBGCRBG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
CRBGCRBG on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
CRBGCRBG on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CB | CRBG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.1% | +5% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +24.2% | +44% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 6 | 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 CRBG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CRBG | 54 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | CBon balance | revenue growth 7.1% vs -3.1%; EPS growth 26.4% vs 63.6%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 7.5%; gross margin 39.6% vs 86.7%; operating margin 18.2% vs 11.5% — CB takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRBG | Value 56 vs 67 |
| Technicals | CRBG | Price vs 50-day -2.7% vs 7.6%; vs 200-day 3.6% vs 17.6% |
| Risk Resilience | CRBG | Risk Resilience 59 vs 78 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 5.1% vs 5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CB and CRBG 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 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 CRBG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CRBG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRBG +13
- 54 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- CRBG +9
- 56 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- CRBG +9
- 51 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- CB +3
- 65 vs 62
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Jun 23 when CB moved ahead of CRBG.
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 (6.33%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.83%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CRBG 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 -0.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.43%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1CB closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRBG's edge.
- 2CB's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CRBG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
CB leads on balance| Metric | CB | CRBG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.1% | -3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.4% | 63.6% |
| Gross margin | 39.6% | 86.7% |
| Operating margin | 18.2% | 11.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 7.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.24 | 1.02 |
Performance
CRBG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CB | CRBG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.4% | 25.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.9% | 36.2% |
| Year to date | 8.5% | 13.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.1% | 1.7% |
Technicals
CRBG has the stronger structure| Metric | CB | CRBG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45 | 71.4 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 18.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.7% | 7.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.6% | 17.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.5% | 30.2% |
Risk
CRBG is the more resilient| Metric | CB | CRBG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.35 | 1.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.53 | 0.18 |
| Max drawdown | -9.6% | -34.2% |
| Current drawdown | -6.8% | -1.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 35.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CB or CRBG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRBG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 67 against CB's 54. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. CB 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 CB or CRBG the better buy right now?
CRBG 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 CRBG over CB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRBG leads Momentum by 36 points; CRBG leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; CRBG leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CB or CRBG?
Analyst price targets imply +5.1% upside for CB and +5% for CRBG. 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, CB or CRBG?
CRBG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRBG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, CB or CRBG?
CRBG 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, CB or CRBG?
CRBG on the Momentum factor, by 36 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, CB or CRBG?
CRBG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRBG on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 CB more profitable than CRBG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 39.6% vs 86.7%; operating margin 18.2% vs 11.5%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 7.5%. CB leads on two measures and CRBG 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 CRBG's lead over CB getting stronger or weaker?
CRBG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 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 changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-23, when CB moved ahead of CRBG.
What would change the CB vs CRBG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CB closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRBG's edge; CB's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CRBG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 CB and CRBG?
CB: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CRBG: 5 bullish / 1 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 CB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRBG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CB and CRBG 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.