NDAQ vs PFG Stock Comparison
PFG currently leads NDAQ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 56. The clearest difference is value, while NDAQ has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between NDAQ 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
Nasdaq, Inc. vs Principal Financial Group, Inc.
PFG leads
PFG leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NDAQ on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support PFG, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Nasdaq, Inc.
Principal Financial Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PFG over NDAQ, 59 versus 56 as of Oct 31, 2026. PFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while NDAQ 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 NDAQ. 1 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Nasdaq, Inc. 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 NDAQ 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.
- Value25 vs 56PFG +31
- Momentum80 vs 60NDAQ +20
- Quality64 vs 60NDAQ +4
- Risk Resilience60 vs 63Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor PFG. PFG’s edge is concentrated in value; NDAQ 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 -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
PFG's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NDAQ 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.
NDAQ (Nasdaq, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 30% 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 31 points.
Momentum
NDAQNDAQ on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
PFGPFG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
NDAQNDAQ 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 NDAQ. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | NDAQ | PFG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.5% | -2.4% | NDAQ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.6% | +38.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 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 | NDAQ | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.18% | 6.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.647 | $2.240 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.050 | $3.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #96 | #198 |
NDAQ grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.18% 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
1 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 | NDAQon balance | revenue growth -5.5% vs 10.7%; EPS growth 7.8% vs -4.7%; TTM ROE 17.3% vs 13%; gross margin 63.2% vs 48.5%; operating margin 31.7% vs 12.1% — NDAQ takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PFG | Value 25 vs 56 |
| Technicals | NDAQ | Price vs 50-day 11% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day 16.6% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | NDAQ | Target upside 6.5% vs -2.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NDAQ 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 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PFG +3
- 56 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- NDAQ +1
- 56 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- PFG +6
- 46 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 26 when PFG moved ahead of NDAQ.
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, conflicted
Only NDAQ
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.9%)
- 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.
NDAQ 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 +0.6%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1NDAQ closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFG's edge.
- 2NDAQ's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PFG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate PFG's advantage entirely.
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
NDAQ leads on balance| Metric | NDAQ | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -5.5% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.8% | -4.7% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 48.5% |
| Operating margin | 31.7% | 12.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.3% | 13% |
| Debt to equity | 0.77 | 0.36 |
Performance
NDAQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | NDAQ | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.6% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.6% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.8% | -3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.3% | 10.4% |
| Year to date | 7.8% | 26.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.9% | 35.4% |
Technicals
NDAQ has the stronger structure| Metric | NDAQ | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 79.4 | 61.4 |
| ADX (14) | 29.9 | 21 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.6% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30% | 20.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | NDAQ | PFG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 1 | 2.12 |
| Max drawdown | -23.9% | -12.8% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -5.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.3% | 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, NDAQ or PFG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PFG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against NDAQ's 56. The edge comes from value. NDAQ 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 NDAQ or PFG the better buy right now?
PFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 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 NDAQ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PFG leads Value by 31 points; NDAQ leads Momentum by 20 points; NDAQ leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NDAQ or PFG?
Analyst price targets imply +6.5% upside for NDAQ and -2.4% for PFG, so the Street currently favors NDAQ. 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, NDAQ or PFG?
PFG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, NDAQ 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, NDAQ or PFG?
NDAQ on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, NDAQ or PFG?
PFG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PFG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is NDAQ more profitable than PFG?
NDAQ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 48.5%; operating margin 31.7% vs 12.1%; ttm roe 17.3% vs 13%.
Is PFG's lead over NDAQ getting stronger or weaker?
PFG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-26, when PFG moved ahead of NDAQ.
What would change the NDAQ vs PFG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NDAQ closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFG's edge; NDAQ's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; PFG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate PFG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about NDAQ and PFG?
NDAQ: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PFG: 2 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 NDAQ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PFG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NDAQ 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.