GL vs GNW Stock Comparison
Compare GL and GNW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GL and GNW?
GNW leads the current stock comparison as Genworth Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Globe Life Inc. vs Genworth Financial, Inc.
GNW leads
GNW leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 4 of 5 evidence groups support GNW, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Globe Life Inc.
Genworth Financial, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GNW over GL, 63 versus 54 as of Sep 11, 2026. GNW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. GNW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor GNW today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GNW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Globe Life Inc. and Genworth Financial, Inc. 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 GL 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.
- Momentum48 vs 78GNW +30
- Risk Resilience62 vs 83GNW +21
- Quality51 vs 48Even
- Value57 vs 54Even
4 of 5 evidence groups favor GNW. GNW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
GNW's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GL 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
GNWGNW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GNWGNW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
GNWGNW on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
GNWGNW on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 | GL | GNW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +18.7% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Strong Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 1 | 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 GNW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GNW | 54 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | GNWon balance | revenue growth 2.6% vs 10.3%; EPS growth 7.5% vs 8.3%; TTM ROE 20.3% vs 2.4%; gross margin 17% vs 40.6%; operating margin 9.2% vs 5.8% — GNW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 57 vs 54 |
| Technicals | GNW | Price vs 50-day -3.8% vs 6%; vs 200-day 10.5% vs 16.1% |
| Risk Resilience | GNW | Risk Resilience 62 vs 83 |
| 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 GL and GNW and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 GNW.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GNW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GNW +9
- 54 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- GNW +9
- 52 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- GNW +9
- 49 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 63 vs 63
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 14 when GNW moved ahead of GL.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.15%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.77%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
GNW 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 +0.22%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1GL closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to GNW's edge.
- 2GL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3GNW'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
GNW leads on balance| Metric | GL | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.6% | 10.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.5% | 8.3% |
| Gross margin | 17% | 40.6% |
| Operating margin | 9.2% | 5.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.3% | 2.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.48 | 0.17 |
Performance
GNW leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GL | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.5% | 3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | 4.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.1% | 17.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 21.1% | 26% |
| Year to date | 22.1% | 15.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.7% | 21.9% |
Technicals
GNW has the stronger structure| Metric | GL | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.7 | 85.5 |
| ADX (14) | 16.1 | 25 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.8% | 6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.5% | 16.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.8% | 14.3% |
Risk
GNW is the more resilient| Metric | GL | GNW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | 0.87 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.12 | 1.28 |
| Max drawdown | -11% | -14.1% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -0.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.3% | 21.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GL or GNW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GNW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 63 against GL's 54. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 GL or GNW the better buy right now?
GNW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GNW over GL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GNW leads Momentum by 30 points; GNW leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GL or GNW?
Analyst price targets imply +6% upside for GL 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, GL or GNW?
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, GL 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, GL or GNW?
GNW on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, GL or GNW?
GNW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GNW on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 GL more profitable than GNW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 17% vs 40.6%; operating margin 9.2% vs 5.8%; ttm roe 20.3% vs 2.4%. GL 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 GNW's lead over GL getting stronger or weaker?
GNW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-14, when GNW moved ahead of GL.
What would change the GL vs GNW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GL closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to GNW's edge; GL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; GNW'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 GL and GNW?
GL: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. GNW: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. 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 GL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GNW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GL 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.