CRBG vs GNW Stock Comparison
CRBG currently leads GNW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 48. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between CRBG and GNW?
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
Corebridge Financial, Inc. vs Genworth Financial, Inc.
CRBG leads
CRBG leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support CRBG, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Corebridge Financial, Inc.
Genworth Financial, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRBG over GNW, 64 versus 48 as of Oct 31, 2026. CRBG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. CRBG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor CRBG today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. CRBG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Corebridge Financial, Inc. and Genworth Financial, 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 CRBG and GNW 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.
- Momentum68 vs 25CRBG +43
- Value67 vs 53CRBG +14
- Quality52 vs 48CRBG +4
- Risk Resilience78 vs 75Even
4 of 5 evidence groups favor CRBG. CRBG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CRBG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRBG and GNW 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
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 14 points.
Momentum
CRBGCRBG on the Momentum factor, by 43 points.
Lower downside
CRBGCRBG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | CRBG | GNW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.2% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +36.8% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 5 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 | 64 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | CRBGon balance | revenue growth -3.1% vs 10.3%; EPS growth 63.6% vs 8.3%; TTM ROE 7.5% vs 2.4%; gross margin 86.7% vs 40.6%; operating margin 11.5% vs 5.8% — CRBG takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRBG | Value 67 vs 53 |
| Technicals | CRBG | Price vs 50-day 2.4% vs -8.8%; vs 200-day 18.6% vs -2.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 78 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRBG and GNW and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRBG +16
- 64 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- CRBG +13
- 61 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- CRBG +12
- 62 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- GNW +4
- 57 vs 61
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when CRBG moved ahead of GNW.
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
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only GNW
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, 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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.77%, 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.
- 1GNW closes the Momentum gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRBG's edge.
- 2GNW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CRBG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
CRBG leads on balance| Metric | CRBG | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.1% | 10.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 63.6% | 8.3% |
| Gross margin | 86.7% | 40.6% |
| Operating margin | 11.5% | 5.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.5% | 2.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.02 | 0.17 |
Performance
CRBG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CRBG | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.6% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.5% | -10.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 31.1% | -1% |
| Year to date | 17% | -1.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.5% | 3.7% |
Technicals
CRBG has the stronger structure| Metric | CRBG | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.4 | 24.1 |
| ADX (14) | 16.3 | 35 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.4% | -8.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.6% | -2.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.1% | 28.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CRBG | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.33 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.37 | 0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.49 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -31.5% | -16.8% |
| Current drawdown | -0.8% | -16.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.7% | 22.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRBG or GNW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRBG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 64 against GNW's 48. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 GNW the better buy right now?
CRBG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRBG over GNW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRBG leads Momentum by 43 points; CRBG leads Value by 14 points; CRBG leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRBG or GNW?
Analyst price targets imply +9.2% upside for CRBG and not covered for GNW. 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 GNW?
CRBG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRBG 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, CRBG or GNW?
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 GNW?
CRBG on the Momentum factor, by 43 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 GNW?
CRBG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRBG 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 CRBG more profitable than GNW?
CRBG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 86.7% vs 40.6%; operating margin 11.5% vs 5.8%; ttm roe 7.5% vs 2.4%.
Is CRBG's lead over GNW getting stronger or weaker?
CRBG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 16 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when CRBG moved ahead of GNW.
What would change the CRBG vs GNW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GNW closes the Momentum gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRBG's edge; GNW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CRBG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 CRBG and GNW?
CRBG: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. GNW: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on CRBG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GNW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRBG and GNW 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.