PFG vs TPG Stock Comparison
PFG currently leads TPG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 43. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between PFG and TPG?
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
Principal Financial Group, Inc. vs TPG Inc.
PFG leads
PFG leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TPG on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PFG, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Principal Financial Group, Inc.
TPG Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PFG over TPG, 59 versus 43 as of Oct 31, 2026. PFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. PFG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TPG. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFG today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. PFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 16 points over 30 sessions. PFG leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Principal Financial Group, Inc. and TPG 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 PFG and TPG 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.
- Value56 vs 29PFG +27
- Risk Resilience63 vs 43PFG +20
- Quality60 vs 49PFG +11
- Momentum60 vs 54PFG +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PFG. PFG’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +14
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
PFG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PFG and TPG 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.
TPG (TPG Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 44.6% 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
TPGTPG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFGPFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
PFGPFG on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
PFGPFG on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
TPGTPG 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 TPG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PFG | TPG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.4% | +23.6% | TPG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.6% | +31.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 9 | 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
4 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 | PFG | 59 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | TPG | revenue growth 10.7% vs 271.1%; EPS growth -4.7% vs 9.8%; TTM ROE 13% vs 18.6%; gross margin 48.5% vs 95.9%; operating margin 12.1% vs 17.7% |
| Valuation | PFG | Value 56 vs 29 |
| Technicals | PFG | Price vs 50-day -0.5% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs 2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | PFG | Risk Resilience 63 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | TPG | Target upside -2.4% vs 23.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PFG and TPG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PFG +16
- 59 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- PFG +14
- 55 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- PFG +11
- 52 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- TPG +2
- 55 vs 57
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when PFG moved ahead of TPG.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 3 neutral
Only TPG
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.74%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.78%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.63%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1TPG closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFG's edge.
- 2TPG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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
TPG leads on balance| Metric | PFG | TPG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.7% | 271.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.7% | 9.8% |
| Gross margin | 48.5% | 95.9% |
| Operating margin | 12.1% | 17.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13% | 18.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.36 | 2.42 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | PFG | TPG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.8% | 4.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | 4.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3% | 0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.4% | 5.6% |
| Year to date | 26.6% | -26.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35.4% | -16.9% |
Technicals
PFG has the stronger structure| Metric | PFG | TPG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.4 | 55 |
| ADX (14) | 21 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.5% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | 2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.5% | 44.6% |
Risk
PFG is the more resilient| Metric | PFG | TPG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.56 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.29 | -0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.12 | -0.49 |
| Max drawdown | -12.8% | -45.5% |
| Current drawdown | -5.8% | -33% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.3% | 40.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PFG or TPG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PFG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against TPG's 43. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. 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 PFG or TPG the better buy right now?
PFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PFG over TPG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PFG leads Value by 27 points; PFG leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; PFG leads Quality by 11 points. PFG leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by TPG simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, PFG or TPG?
Analyst price targets imply -2.4% upside for PFG and +23.6% for TPG, so the Street currently favors TPG. 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, PFG or TPG?
PFG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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, PFG or TPG?
TPG 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, PFG or TPG?
PFG 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, PFG or TPG?
PFG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PFG on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 PFG more profitable than TPG?
TPG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 48.5% vs 95.9%; operating margin 12.1% vs 17.7%; ttm roe 13% vs 18.6%.
Is PFG's lead over TPG getting stronger or weaker?
PFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 16 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 2026-09-02, when PFG moved ahead of TPG.
What would change the PFG vs TPG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TPG closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFG's edge; TPG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 PFG and TPG?
PFG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. TPG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 3 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on PFG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TPG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PFG and TPG 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.