PCG vs POR Stock Comparison
Compare PCG and POR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PCG and POR?
POR leads the current stock comparison as Portland General Electric Company, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
PG&E Corporation vs Portland General Electric Company
POR leads
POR leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from PCG. Wall Street currently favors PCG on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support POR, and the lead recently changed hands.
PG&E Corporation
Portland General Electric Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors POR over PCG, 45 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. POR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while PCG holds the stronger value profile. POR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PCG. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor POR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. POR lead: Reversed — PCG led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; POR now leads by 3.
Compare PG&E Corporation and Portland General Electric 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 PCG and POR 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.
- Risk Resilience26 vs 57POR +31
- Value70 vs 59PCG +11
- Momentum24 vs 30POR +6
- Quality36 vs 37Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor POR. POR’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; PCG 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 -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.06%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
POR's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PCG and POR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
POR (Portland General Electric Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
PCG (PG&E Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 87.8% against 17.5%.
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
PORPOR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PORPOR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PCGPCG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
PORPOR on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
PORPOR on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
PCGPCG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors POR, analyst targets favor PCG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PCG | POR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.1% | +8.5% | PCG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72.9% | +5.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 2 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor POR. 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 | 42 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | PCGon balance | revenue growth -14.2% vs -10.5%; EPS growth -15.4% vs 43.9%; TTM ROE 9.6% vs 6.3%; gross margin 56.2% vs 44.4%; operating margin 20% vs 15.5% — PCG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PCG | Value 70 vs 59 |
| Technicals | POR | Price vs 50-day -18.5% vs -4.6%; vs 200-day -16.2% vs -4% |
| Risk Resilience | POR | Risk Resilience 26 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | PCG | Target upside 49.1% vs 8.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PCG and POR 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 POR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10POR lead: Reversed — PCG led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; POR now leads by 3.
- Today
- POR +3
- 42 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- POR +2
- 42 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- PCG +5
- 53 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when POR moved ahead of PCG.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.08%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.06%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
PCG 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 -1.64%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.66%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1PCG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to POR's edge.
- 2PCG's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3POR 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
PCG leads on balance| Metric | PCG | POR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -14.2% | -10.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -15.4% | 43.9% |
| Gross margin | 56.2% | 44.4% |
| Operating margin | 20% | 15.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.6% | 6.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.91 | 1.26 |
Performance
POR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PCG | POR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.3% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -19.3% | -0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.1% | -4.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -22.7% | -6.8% |
| Year to date | -12.7% | 1.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.6% | 15.4% |
Technicals
POR has the stronger structure| Metric | PCG | POR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.4 | 35.6 |
| ADX (14) | 28.8 | 11.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18.5% | -4.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.2% | -4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 87.8% | 17.5% |
Risk
POR is the more resilient| Metric | PCG | POR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.15 | -0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.11 | 0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.12 | 0.97 |
| Max drawdown | -30.6% | -12.8% |
| Current drawdown | -26.6% | -10.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 35% | 18.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PCG or POR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, POR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 45 against PCG's 42. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. PCG 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 PCG or POR the better buy right now?
POR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 POR over PCG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. POR leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; PCG leads Value by 11 points; POR leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PCG or POR?
Analyst price targets imply +49.1% upside for PCG and +8.5% for POR, so the Street currently favors PCG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors POR. 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, PCG or POR?
PCG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PCG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, PCG or POR?
POR 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, PCG or POR?
POR on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, PCG or POR?
POR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. POR on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 PCG more profitable than POR?
PCG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56.2% vs 44.4%; operating margin 20% vs 15.5%; ttm roe 9.6% vs 6.3%.
Is POR's lead over PCG getting stronger or weaker?
POR lead: Reversed — PCG led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; POR now leads by 3. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-28, when POR moved ahead of PCG.
What would change the PCG vs POR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PCG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to POR's edge; PCG's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; POR 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 PCG and POR?
PCG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. POR: 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 PCG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On POR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare PCG and POR 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.