CRBG vs EG Stock Comparison
CRBG currently leads EG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 63. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while EG has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between CRBG and EG?
CRBG leads the current stock comparison as Corebridge Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Corebridge Financial, Inc. vs Everest Group, Ltd.
CRBG leads
CRBG leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CRBG, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Corebridge Financial, Inc.
Everest Group, Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRBG over EG, 64 versus 63 as of Oct 31, 2026. CRBG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while EG holds the stronger momentum profile. CRBG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRBG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. CRBG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Corebridge Financial, Inc. and Everest Group, Ltd. 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 CRBG 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.
- Risk Resilience78 vs 50CRBG +28
- Momentum68 vs 74EG +6
- Value67 vs 70Even
- Quality52 vs 52Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CRBG. CRBG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; EG keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: CRBG moved ahead of EG in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRBG and EG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRBG (Corebridge Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
EG (Everest Group, Ltd.): the counter-case, on momentum, 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
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EGEG on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
CRBGCRBG on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
CRBGCRBG 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 | CRBG | EG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.2% | -2.9% | CRBG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.8% | +36.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | Even | 64 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | EGon balance | revenue growth -3.1% vs -2.6%; EPS growth 63.6% vs -14.4%; TTM ROE 7.5% vs 12.4%; gross margin 86.7% vs 28.8%; operating margin 11.5% vs 15.4% — EG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 67 vs 70 |
| Technicals | CRBG | Price vs 50-day 2.4% vs 9%; vs 200-day 18.6% vs 9.7% |
| Risk Resilience | CRBG | Risk Resilience 78 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | CRBG | Target upside 9.2% vs -2.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRBG 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 1 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 CRBG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CRBG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRBG +1
- 64 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- EG +6
- 61 vs 67
- 30 sessions ago
- CRBG +10
- 62 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- EG +5
- 57 vs 62
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 28 when CRBG 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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only CRBG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.36%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.59%, 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.
- 1EG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRBG's edge.
- 2EG's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3CRBG'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 1-point move would eliminate CRBG'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
EG leads on balance| Metric | CRBG | EG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.1% | -2.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 63.6% | -14.4% |
| Gross margin | 86.7% | 28.8% |
| Operating margin | 11.5% | 15.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.5% | 12.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.02 | 0.23 |
Performance
CRBG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CRBG | EG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.6% | 5.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.5% | 3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 31.1% | 12.5% |
| Year to date | 17% | 14% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.5% | 10.9% |
Technicals
CRBG has the stronger structure| Metric | CRBG | EG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.4 | 60.7 |
| ADX (14) | 16.3 | 24.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.4% | 9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.6% | 9.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.1% | 22.9% |
Risk
CRBG is the more resilient| Metric | CRBG | EG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.33 | -0.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.37 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.49 | 1.74 |
| Max drawdown | -31.5% | -11.2% |
| Current drawdown | -0.8% | -5.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.7% | 21.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRBG or EG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRBG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 64 against EG's 63. The edge comes from risk resilience. EG is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CRBG or EG the better buy right now?
CRBG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRBG over EG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRBG leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; EG leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRBG or EG?
Analyst price targets imply +9.2% upside for CRBG and -2.9% for EG, so the Street currently favors 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, CRBG or EG?
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, CRBG or EG?
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, CRBG or EG?
EG on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, CRBG or EG?
CRBG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRBG on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 CRBG more profitable than EG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 86.7% vs 28.8%; operating margin 11.5% vs 15.4%; ttm roe 7.5% vs 12.4%. CRBG leads on one measure and EG 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 CRBG's lead over EG getting stronger or weaker?
CRBG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-28, when CRBG moved ahead of EG.
What would change the CRBG vs EG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRBG's edge; EG's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; CRBG'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 1-point move would eliminate CRBG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CRBG and EG?
CRBG: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. EG: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on CRBG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRBG 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.