GNW vs XLK Stock Comparison
Compare GNW and XLK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GNW and XLK?
GNW leads the current stock comparison as Genworth Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Genworth Financial, Inc. vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
GNW leads
GNW leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from XLK.
Fragile: 4 of 4 evidence groups support GNW, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Genworth Financial, Inc.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GNW over XLK, 63 versus 59 as of Sep 11, 2026. GNW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while XLK holds the stronger quality profile. GNW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor GNW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. GNW lead: Reversed — XLK led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GNW now leads by 4.
Compare Genworth Financial, Inc. and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF 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 GNW and XLK 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.
- Quality48 vs 74XLK +26
- Risk Resilience83 vs 62GNW +21
- Value54 vs 36GNW +18
- Momentum78 vs 65GNW +13
4 of 4 evidence groups favor GNW. GNW’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; XLK 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: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
GNW's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GNW and XLK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GNW (Genworth Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 20.6% against 14.3%.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
GNWGNW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
GNWGNW on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
GNWGNW on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 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 | 63 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | GNW | Value 54 vs 36 |
| Technicals | GNW | Price vs 50-day 6% vs 2.7%; vs 200-day 16.1% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | GNW | Risk Resilience 83 vs 62 |
| 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 GNW and XLK 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 GNW.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GNW lead: Reversed — XLK led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GNW now leads by 4.
- Today
- GNW +4
- 63 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- GNW +5
- 61 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- XLK +1
- 58 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- GNW +20
- 63 vs 43
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when GNW moved ahead of XLK.
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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.77%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.41%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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 +0.19%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, 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.
- 1XLK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GNW's edge.
- 2XLK's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 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
Split| Metric | GNW | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.3% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.3% | — |
| Gross margin | 40.6% | — |
| Operating margin | 5.8% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.4% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.17 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | GNW | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.4% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.5% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.2% | 4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 26% | 31.9% |
| Year to date | 15.9% | 28.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.9% | 39.9% |
Technicals
GNW has the stronger structure| Metric | GNW | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.5 | 54.1 |
| ADX (14) | 25 | 10.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6% | 2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.1% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.3% | 20.6% |
Risk
GNW is the more resilient| Metric | GNW | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | 1.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.28 | 1.94 |
| Max drawdown | -14.1% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -0.2% | -6.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GNW or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GNW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 63 against XLK's 59. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. XLK 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 GNW or XLK the better buy right now?
GNW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GNW over XLK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XLK leads Quality by 26 points; GNW leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; GNW leads Value by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, GNW or XLK?
GNW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GNW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, GNW or XLK?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, GNW or XLK?
GNW on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, GNW or XLK?
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 GNW more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is GNW's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
GNW lead: Reversed — XLK led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GNW now leads by 4. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when GNW moved ahead of XLK.
What would change the GNW vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GNW's edge; XLK's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; 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 GNW and XLK?
GNW: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. XLK: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 GNW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.