GGB vs PBR Stock Comparison
Compare GGB and PBR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GGB and PBR?
PBR leads the current stock comparison as Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Gerdau S.A. vs Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras
PBR leads
PBR leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value. Wall Street currently favors GGB on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PBR, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Gerdau S.A.
Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PBR over GGB, 67 versus 59 as of Sep 11, 2026. PBR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while GGB holds the stronger risk resilience profile. PBR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GGB. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PBR today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. PBR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Gerdau S.A. and Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras 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 GGB and PBR 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.
- Quality36 vs 72PBR +36
- Risk Resilience65 vs 34GGB +31
- Value62 vs 70PBR +8
- Momentum79 vs 77Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PBR. PBR’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; GGB keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
PBR's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GGB and PBR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PBR (Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
GGB (Gerdau S.A.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
PBRPBR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PBRPBR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PBRPBR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GGBGGB on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
GGBGGB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PBR, analyst targets favor GGB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GGB | PBR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.1% | +0.2% | GGB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15% | +23.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PBR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PBR | 59 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | PBR | revenue growth 6.9% vs 42.8%; EPS growth 45.1% vs 68.8%; TTM ROE 4.2% vs 30.9%; gross margin 13.1% vs 49.2%; operating margin 7.3% vs 32.8% |
| Valuation | PBR | Value 62 vs 70 |
| Technicals | PBR | Price vs 50-day 9.5% vs 14.8%; vs 200-day 20.2% vs 24.3% |
| Risk Resilience | GGB | Risk Resilience 65 vs 34 |
| Analyst expectations | GGB | Target upside 10.1% vs 0.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GGB and PBR 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 moderate at 8 points.
- 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 PBR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PBR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PBR +8
- 59 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- PBR +11
- 55 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- PBR +9
- 50 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- PBR +4
- 51 vs 55
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 11 when PBR moved ahead of GGB.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.83%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
6 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.37%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
GGB is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.98%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.84%, 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.
- 1GGB closes the Quality gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to PBR's edge.
- 2GGB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3PBR'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
PBR leads on balance| Metric | GGB | PBR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.9% | 42.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.1% | 68.8% |
| Gross margin | 13.1% | 49.2% |
| Operating margin | 7.3% | 32.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.2% | 30.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.28 | 0.76 |
Performance
PBR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GGB | PBR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.6% | 2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.6% | 20.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.8% | 18.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 41.7% | 12.6% |
| Year to date | 37.1% | 80.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 61.4% | 72.8% |
Technicals
PBR has the stronger structure| Metric | GGB | PBR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84.1 | 67.9 |
| ADX (14) | 22 | 25.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9.5% | 14.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 20.2% | 24.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.7% | 37.8% |
Risk
GGB is the more resilient| Metric | GGB | PBR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.25 | -0.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.48 | 1.7 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.29 | 2.71 |
| Max drawdown | -28.7% | -27.4% |
| Current drawdown | -0.8% | -3% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.3% | 33.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GGB or PBR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PBR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 67 against GGB's 59. The edge comes from quality and value. GGB 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 GGB or PBR the better buy right now?
PBR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 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 PBR over GGB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PBR leads Quality by 36 points; GGB leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; PBR leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GGB or PBR?
Analyst price targets imply +10.1% upside for GGB and +0.2% for PBR, so the Street currently favors GGB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PBR. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, GGB or PBR?
PBR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PBR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, GGB or PBR?
PBR 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, GGB or PBR?
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, GGB or PBR?
GGB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GGB on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 GGB more profitable than PBR?
PBR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 13.1% vs 49.2%; operating margin 7.3% vs 32.8%; ttm roe 4.2% vs 30.9%.
Is PBR's lead over GGB getting stronger or weaker?
PBR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-11, when PBR moved ahead of GGB.
What would change the GGB vs PBR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GGB closes the Quality gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to PBR's edge; GGB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; PBR'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 GGB and PBR?
GGB: 6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PBR: 6 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 GGB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PBR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GGB and PBR 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.