MCO vs PFG Stock Comparison
PFG currently leads MCO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 56. The clearest difference is value, while MCO has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between MCO and PFG?
PFG leads the current stock comparison as Principal Financial Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Moody's Corporation vs Principal Financial Group, Inc.
PFG leads
PFG leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors MCO on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PFG, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Moody's Corporation
Principal Financial Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PFG over MCO, 59 versus 56 as of Oct 31, 2026. PFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while MCO holds the stronger momentum profile. PFG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MCO. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. PFG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Moody's Corporation and Principal Financial Group, 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 MCO and PFG 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.
- Value24 vs 56PFG +32
- Momentum79 vs 60MCO +19
- Quality70 vs 60MCO +10
- Risk Resilience53 vs 63PFG +10
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PFG. PFG’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; MCO keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
PFG's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MCO and PFG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PFG (Principal Financial Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
MCO (Moody's Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 25.5% against 20.5%.
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
PFGPFG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PFGPFG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFGPFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
MCOMCO on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
PFGPFG on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
MCOMCO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PFG, analyst targets favor MCO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MCO | PFG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.3% | -2.4% | MCO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24% | +38.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 8 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MCO | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.91% | 6.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.240 | $2.240 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.760 | $3.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #79 | #198 |
MCO grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.91% a year against PFG's 6.58%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFG. 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 | 56 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | MCOon balance | revenue growth -7.4% vs 10.7%; EPS growth -15.5% vs -4.7%; TTM ROE 86.4% vs 13%; gross margin 73.1% vs 48.5%; operating margin 44.9% vs 12.1% — MCO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PFG | Value 24 vs 56 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 3.5% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day 5.8% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | PFG | Risk Resilience 53 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | MCO | Target upside 7.3% vs -2.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MCO and PFG 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)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 PFG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30PFG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PFG +3
- 56 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- MCO +3
- 58 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- PFG +5
- 47 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- MCO +4
- 59 vs 55
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 27 when PFG moved ahead of MCO.
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 MCO
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only PFG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.04%, AIQ +4 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.78%, 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.
- 1MCO closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFG's edge.
- 2MCO's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3PFG'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
MCO leads on balance| Metric | MCO | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.4% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -15.5% | -4.7% |
| Gross margin | 73.1% | 48.5% |
| Operating margin | 44.9% | 12.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 86.4% | 13% |
| Debt to equity | 2.29 | 0.36 |
Performance
PFG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MCO | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.9% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.2% | -3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.4% | 10.4% |
| Year to date | -3.3% | 26.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4% | 35.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | MCO | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.4 | 61.4 |
| ADX (14) | 17.7 | 21 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.5% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.8% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.5% | 20.5% |
Risk
PFG is the more resilient| Metric | MCO | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.48 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.11 | 1.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.15 | 2.12 |
| Max drawdown | -23.6% | -12.8% |
| Current drawdown | -8.5% | -5.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.9% | 22.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MCO or PFG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PFG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against MCO's 56. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. MCO is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 MCO or PFG the better buy right now?
PFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 PFG over MCO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PFG leads Value by 32 points; MCO leads Momentum by 19 points; MCO leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MCO or PFG?
Analyst price targets imply +7.3% upside for MCO and -2.4% for PFG, so the Street currently favors MCO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PFG. 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, MCO or PFG?
PFG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, MCO or PFG?
PFG 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, MCO or PFG?
MCO on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, MCO or PFG?
PFG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PFG on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 MCO more profitable than PFG?
MCO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 73.1% vs 48.5%; operating margin 44.9% vs 12.1%; ttm roe 86.4% vs 13%.
Is PFG's lead over MCO getting stronger or weaker?
PFG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-27, when PFG moved ahead of MCO.
What would change the MCO vs PFG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MCO closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFG's edge; MCO's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; PFG'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 MCO and PFG?
MCO: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. PFG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on MCO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PFG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MCO and PFG 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.