CB vs EG Stock Comparison
Compare CB and EG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CB 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
Chubb Limited vs Everest Group, Ltd.
EG leads
EG leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support EG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Chubb Limited
Everest Group, Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EG over CB, 56 versus 54 as of Sep 11, 2026. EG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while CB holds the stronger quality profile. EG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. EG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Chubb Limited 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 CB 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.
- Value56 vs 70EG +14
- Quality59 vs 52CB +7
- Risk Resilience59 vs 52CB +7
- Momentum43 vs 48EG +5
2 of 6 evidence groups favor EG. EG’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; 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 -1
No new signals fired.
EG's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CB 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.
CB (Chubb Limited): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, 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
EGEG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CBCB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EGEG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EGEG on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
CBCB on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 | EG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.1% | +4.6% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +24.2% | +37% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 | Even | 54 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | CB | revenue growth 7.1% vs -2.6%; EPS growth 26.4% vs -14.4%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 12.4%; gross margin 39.6% vs 28.8%; operating margin 18.2% vs 15.4% |
| Valuation | EG | Value 56 vs 70 |
| Technicals | EG | Price vs 50-day -2.7% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day 3.6% vs 8% |
| Risk Resilience | CB | Risk Resilience 59 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 5.1% vs 4.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CB 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EG +2
- 54 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- EG +8
- 56 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- EG +1
- 51 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- EG +2
- 65 vs 67
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 4 when CB moved ahead of EG.
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
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.
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).
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.
- 1CB closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to EG's edge.
- 2CB's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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
CB leads on balance| Metric | CB | EG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.1% | -2.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.4% | -14.4% |
| Gross margin | 39.6% | 28.8% |
| Operating margin | 18.2% | 15.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 12.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.24 | 0.23 |
Performance
EG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CB | EG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.4% | 10.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.9% | 15.4% |
| Year to date | 8.5% | 9.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.1% | 9.3% |
Technicals
EG has the stronger structure| Metric | CB | EG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45 | 52.5 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 14.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.7% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.6% | 8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.5% | 19.6% |
Risk
CB is the more resilient| Metric | CB | EG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.35 | -0.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.53 | 0.37 |
| Max drawdown | -9.6% | -16.4% |
| Current drawdown | -6.8% | -6.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 25% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CB or EG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against CB's 54. The edge comes from value and momentum. 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 EG the better buy right now?
EG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EG over CB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EG leads Value by 14 points; CB leads Quality by 7 points; CB leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CB or EG?
Analyst price targets imply +5.1% upside for CB and +4.6% for EG. 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 EG?
EG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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 EG?
CB 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 EG?
EG on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 EG?
CB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CB on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 EG?
CB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 39.6% vs 28.8%; operating margin 18.2% vs 15.4%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 12.4%.
Is EG's lead over CB getting stronger or weaker?
EG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-04, when CB moved ahead of EG.
What would change the CB vs EG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CB closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to EG's edge; CB's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 CB and EG?
CB: 1 bullish / 1 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 CB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CB 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.