CFG vs GS Stock Comparison
CFG currently leads GS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 50. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between CFG and GS?
CFG leads the current stock comparison as Citizens Financial Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. vs The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
CFG leads
CFG leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CFG, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CFG over GS, 54 versus 50 as of Oct 22, 2026. CFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. CFG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CFG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. CFG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Citizens Financial Group, Inc. and The Goldman Sachs 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 CFG and GS 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.
- Quality58 vs 44CFG +14
- Value52 vs 54Even
- Risk Resilience63 vs 64Even
- Momentum45 vs 45Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CFG. CFG’s edge is concentrated in quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
CFG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CFG and GS 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
CFGCFG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CFGCFG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
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 | CFG | GS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.8% | +23.2% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +25.1% | +38.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CFG | GS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.97% | 22.87% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.560 | $5.000 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.720 | $14.000 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #330 | #8 |
GS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 22.87% a year against CFG's 1.97%. 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CFG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CFG | 54 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | CFGon balance | revenue growth 2.3% vs -1.9%; EPS growth 8.4% vs -18.9%; TTM ROE 8.7% vs 17.9%; gross margin 73.3% vs 57.5%; operating margin 24.8% vs 25% — CFG takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 52 vs 54 |
| Technicals | CFG | Price vs 50-day -4.2% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day -1.8% vs -7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 63 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 22.8% vs 23.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CFG and GS 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 CFG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CFG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CFG +4
- 54 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- CFG +8
- 52 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- CFG +13
- 50 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- CFG +13
- 61 vs 48
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 / 1 neutral
Only CFG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.03%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.25%, 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.
- 1GS closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to CFG's edge.
- 2GS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3CFG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate CFG'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
CFG leads on balance| Metric | CFG | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.3% | -1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.4% | -18.9% |
| Gross margin | 73.3% | 57.5% |
| Operating margin | 24.8% | 25% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.7% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.71 | 6.71 |
Performance
CFG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CFG | GS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.9% | -6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.3% | -19.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.7% | -4.5% |
| Year to date | 9.9% | 0.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 32.7% | 16.7% |
Technicals
CFG has the stronger structure| Metric | CFG | GS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.8 | 42.5 |
| ADX (14) | 32.1 | 32.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.2% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.8% | -7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.9% | 17.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CFG | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.9 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.55 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.53 | 0.85 |
| Max drawdown | -18.3% | -24% |
| Current drawdown | -14.1% | -23.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.4% | 32% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CFG or GS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CFG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 54 against GS's 50. The edge comes from quality. 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 CFG or GS the better buy right now?
CFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CFG over GS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CFG leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CFG or GS?
Analyst price targets imply +22.8% upside for CFG and +23.2% for GS. 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, CFG or GS?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, CFG or GS?
CFG 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, CFG or GS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CFG or GS?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CFG more profitable than GS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.3% vs 57.5%; operating margin 24.8% vs 25%; ttm roe 8.7% vs 17.9%. Each name leads 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 CFG's lead over GS getting stronger or weaker?
CFG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CFG vs GS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GS closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to CFG's edge; GS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; CFG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate CFG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CFG and GS?
CFG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. GS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on CFG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CFG and GS 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.