NWL vs PG Stock Comparison
Compare NWL and PG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between NWL and PG?
PG leads the current stock comparison as The Procter & Gamble Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Newell Brands Inc. vs The Procter & Gamble Company
PG leads
PG leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PG, and its lead is widening.
Newell Brands Inc.
The Procter & Gamble Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PG over NWL, 51 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. PG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while NWL holds the stronger value profile. PG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. PG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Newell Brands Inc. and The Procter & Gamble Company 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 NWL and PG 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.
- Quality16 vs 73PG +57
- Value68 vs 35NWL +33
- Momentum63 vs 41NWL +22
- Risk Resilience36 vs 55PG +19
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PG. PG’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; NWL keeps a meaningful value 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: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
PG's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NWL and PG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PG (The Procter & Gamble Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
NWL (Newell Brands Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 51.6% 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
PGPG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NWLNWL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NWLNWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
NWLNWL on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
PGPG on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
PGPG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | NWL | PG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.2% | +6.9% | PG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +125.4% | +19.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PG | 46 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | PGon balance | EPS growth 4.2% vs -23.5%; TTM ROE -8.9% vs 29.8%; gross margin 35.5% vs 50.2%; operating margin 8.1% vs 22.7% — PG takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NWL | Value 68 vs 35 |
| Technicals | NWL | Price vs 50-day 2.2% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day 29.8% vs -3.1% |
| Risk Resilience | PG | Risk Resilience 36 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | PG | Target upside 2.2% vs 6.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NWL and PG 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 PG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PG +5
- 46 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- PG +8
- 46 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- PG +1
- 50 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- PG +6
- 50 vs 56
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when NWL moved ahead of PG.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (26.60%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.72%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
NWL 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.34%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.61%, 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.
- 1NWL closes the Quality gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to PG's edge.
- 2NWL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
PG leads on balance| Metric | NWL | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 28.7% | -0.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.2% | -23.5% |
| Gross margin | 35.5% | 50.2% |
| Operating margin | 8.1% | 22.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.9% | 29.8% |
| Debt to equity | 2.26 | 0.64 |
Performance
NWL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NWL | PG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.7% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 31% | -4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.8% | -6.8% |
| Year to date | 57.8% | -0.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.3% | -10.1% |
Technicals
NWL has the stronger structure| Metric | NWL | PG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.9 | 50 |
| ADX (14) | 20.5 | 8.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.2% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.8% | -3.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.6% | 14.3% |
Risk
PG is the more resilient| Metric | NWL | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | -0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | -0.66 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.19 | -1.14 |
| Max drawdown | -50% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -7.7% | -14.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.3% | 19.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NWL or PG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against NWL's 46. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. NWL is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 NWL or PG the better buy right now?
PG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PG over NWL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PG leads Quality by 57 points; NWL leads Value by 33 points; NWL leads Momentum by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NWL or PG?
Analyst price targets imply +2.2% upside for NWL and +6.9% for PG, so the Street currently favors PG. 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, NWL or PG?
NWL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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, NWL or PG?
NWL 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, NWL or PG?
NWL on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, NWL or PG?
PG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PG on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 NWL more profitable than PG?
PG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 35.5% vs 50.2%; operating margin 8.1% vs 22.7%; ttm roe -8.9% vs 29.8%.
Is PG's lead over NWL getting stronger or weaker?
PG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-05, when NWL moved ahead of PG.
What would change the NWL vs PG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NWL closes the Quality gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to PG's edge; NWL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; PG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 NWL and PG?
NWL: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PG: 0 bullish / 3 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 NWL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NWL and PG 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.