EG vs GNW Stock Comparison
EG currently leads GNW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 48. The clearest difference is momentum, while GNW has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between EG and GNW?
EG leads the current stock comparison as Everest Group, Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Everest Group, Ltd. vs Genworth Financial, Inc.
EG leads
EG leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 5 evidence groups support EG, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Everest Group, Ltd.
Genworth Financial, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EG over GNW, 63 versus 48 as of Oct 31, 2026. EG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while GNW holds the stronger risk resilience profile. EG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor EG today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. EG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Everest Group, Ltd. 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 EG 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.
- Momentum74 vs 25EG +49
- Risk Resilience50 vs 75GNW +25
- Value70 vs 53EG +17
- Quality52 vs 48EG +4
3 of 5 evidence groups favor EG. EG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; GNW keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 -11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 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
EG's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EG and GNW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EG (Everest Group, Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
GNW (Genworth Financial, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 28.7% against 22.9%.
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
GNWGNW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EGEG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
EGEG on the Momentum factor, by 49 points.
Lower downside
GNWGNW on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 | EG | GNW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.9% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +36.1% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 5 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 | EG | 63 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | GNWon balance | revenue growth -2.6% vs 10.3%; EPS growth -14.4% vs 8.3%; TTM ROE 12.4% vs 2.4%; gross margin 28.8% vs 40.6%; operating margin 15.4% vs 5.8% — GNW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EG | Value 70 vs 53 |
| Technicals | EG | Price vs 50-day 9% vs -8.8%; vs 200-day 9.7% vs -2.5% |
| Risk Resilience | GNW | Risk Resilience 50 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 EG 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 EG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28EG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EG +15
- 63 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- EG +19
- 67 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- EG +2
- 52 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- EG +1
- 62 vs 61
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 22 when EG 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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only EG
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only GNW
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.59%, AIQ -2 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 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to EG's edge.
- 2GNW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3EG'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
GNW leads on balance| Metric | EG | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -2.6% | 10.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -14.4% | 8.3% |
| Gross margin | 28.8% | 40.6% |
| Operating margin | 15.4% | 5.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.4% | 2.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.17 |
Performance
EG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EG | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.9% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | -10.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.5% | -1% |
| Year to date | 14% | -1.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.9% | 3.7% |
Technicals
EG has the stronger structure| Metric | EG | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.7 | 24.1 |
| ADX (14) | 24.8 | 35 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9% | -8.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.7% | -2.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.9% | 28.7% |
Risk
GNW is the more resilient| Metric | EG | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.08 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | 0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.74 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -11.2% | -16.8% |
| Current drawdown | -5.1% | -16.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.1% | 22.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EG or GNW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 63 against GNW's 48. The edge comes from momentum and value. GNW is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 EG or GNW the better buy right now?
EG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 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 EG over GNW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EG leads Momentum by 49 points; GNW leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; EG leads Value by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EG or GNW?
Analyst price targets imply -2.9% upside for EG 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, EG or GNW?
EG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, EG or GNW?
GNW 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, EG or GNW?
EG on the Momentum factor, by 49 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, EG or GNW?
GNW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GNW on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 EG more profitable than GNW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28.8% vs 40.6%; operating margin 15.4% vs 5.8%; ttm roe 12.4% vs 2.4%. EG leads on two measures and GNW 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 EG's lead over GNW getting stronger or weaker?
EG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 15 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-22, when EG moved ahead of GNW.
What would change the EG 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 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to EG's edge; GNW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; EG'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 EG and GNW?
EG: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. GNW: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on EG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GNW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EG 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.