CRBG vs HAFC Stock Comparison
Compare CRBG and HAFC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CRBG and HAFC?
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 Hanmi Financial Corporation
CRBG leads
CRBG leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CRBG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Corebridge Financial, Inc.
Hanmi Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRBG over HAFC, 67 versus 64 as of Sep 11, 2026. CRBG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while HAFC 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 Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CRBG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Corebridge Financial, Inc. and Hanmi Financial Corporation 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 CRBG and HAFC 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 62CRBG +16
- Quality52 vs 64HAFC +12
- Value67 vs 58CRBG +9
- Momentum79 vs 72CRBG +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CRBG. CRBG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; HAFC 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 +8
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +19
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CRBG's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRBG and HAFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRBG (Corebridge Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
HAFC (Hanmi Financial Corporation): the counter-case, on quality.
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 9 points.
Momentum
CRBGCRBG on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
CRBGCRBG on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 | CRBG | HAFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5% | +5.9% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +44% | +8.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 3 | 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 | Even | 67 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | CRBGon balance | revenue growth -3.1% vs -45.6%; EPS growth 63.6% vs 2.6%; TTM ROE 7.5% vs 11.2%; gross margin 86.7% vs 56.4%; operating margin 11.5% vs 17.3% — CRBG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRBG | Value 67 vs 58 |
| Technicals | CRBG | Price vs 50-day 7.6% vs -0.3%; vs 200-day 17.6% vs 9.1% |
| Risk Resilience | CRBG | Risk Resilience 78 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 5% vs 5.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRBG and HAFC 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRBG +3
- 67 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- CRBG +4
- 65 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- CRBG +4
- 60 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- HAFC +1
- 62 vs 63
The lead changed hands 11 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when CRBG moved ahead of HAFC.
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 / 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
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.06%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.43%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.28%, AIQ +5 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.
- 1HAFC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRBG's edge.
- 2HAFC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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
CRBG leads on balance| Metric | CRBG | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.1% | -45.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 63.6% | 2.6% |
| Gross margin | 86.7% | 56.4% |
| Operating margin | 11.5% | 17.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.5% | 11.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.02 | 0.16 |
Performance
CRBG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CRBG | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.9% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.2% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 25.8% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.2% | 26.6% |
| Year to date | 13.3% | 18% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.7% | 26.8% |
Technicals
CRBG has the stronger structure| Metric | CRBG | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71.4 | 61.9 |
| ADX (14) | 18.1 | 12.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.6% | -0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.6% | 9.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.2% | 16.8% |
Risk
CRBG is the more resilient| Metric | CRBG | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.31 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 0.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.18 | 1.07 |
| Max drawdown | -34.2% | -16.2% |
| Current drawdown | -1.6% | -4.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.3% | 30.4% |
| 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 HAFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRBG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 67 against HAFC's 64. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. HAFC 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 CRBG or HAFC the better buy right now?
CRBG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRBG over HAFC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRBG leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; HAFC leads Quality by 12 points; CRBG leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRBG or HAFC?
Analyst price targets imply +5% upside for CRBG and +5.9% for HAFC. 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 HAFC?
CRBG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRBG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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 HAFC?
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 HAFC?
CRBG on the Momentum factor, by 7 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 HAFC?
CRBG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRBG on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 HAFC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 86.7% vs 56.4%; operating margin 11.5% vs 17.3%; ttm roe 7.5% vs 11.2%. CRBG leads on one measure and HAFC 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 HAFC getting stronger or weaker?
CRBG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 11 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when CRBG moved ahead of HAFC.
What would change the CRBG vs HAFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HAFC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRBG's edge; HAFC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 CRBG and HAFC?
CRBG: 5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HAFC: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 CRBG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HAFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRBG and HAFC 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.