PG vs TGT Stock Comparison
PG currently leads TGT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 61 vs 54. The clearest difference is momentum, while TGT has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between PG and TGT?
PG leads the current stock comparison as The Procter & Gamble Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Procter & Gamble Company vs Target Corporation
PG leads
PG leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Procter & Gamble Company
Target Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PG over TGT, 61 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. PG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while TGT holds the stronger value profile. PG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. PG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Procter & Gamble Company and Target Corporation 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 PG and TGT 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.
- Momentum82 vs 43PG +39
- Value34 vs 58TGT +24
- Quality73 vs 54PG +19
- Risk Resilience54 vs 63TGT +9
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PG. PG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; TGT keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
PG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PG and TGT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PG (The Procter & Gamble Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
TGT (Target Corporation): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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
TGTTGT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TGTTGT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
PGPG on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
TGTTGT on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | PG | TGT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.9% | +0.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +19% | +56.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 22 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | PG | TGT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 6.02% | 11.02% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.118 | $2.680 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.177 | $4.520 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #210 | #75 |
TGT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 11.02% a year against PG's 6.02%. 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 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 | 61 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | PGon balance | EPS growth -23.5% vs 140.1%; TTM ROE 29.8% vs 26.7%; gross margin 50.2% vs 29.3%; operating margin 22.7% vs 5.6% — PG takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TGT | Value 34 vs 58 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 6.4% vs -3.3%; vs 200-day 7.4% vs 16.5% |
| Risk Resilience | TGT | Risk Resilience 54 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 0.9% vs 0.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PG and TGT 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PG +7
- 61 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- PG +6
- 61 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- PG +3
- 60 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- TGT +11
- 47 vs 58
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 30 when TGT 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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only PG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.56%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TGT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.23%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
PG leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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 -1.56%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.05%, 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.
- 1TGT closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to PG's edge.
- 2TGT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | PG | TGT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.2% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.5% | 140.1% |
| Gross margin | 50.2% | 29.3% |
| Operating margin | 22.7% | 5.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 29.8% | 26.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 1.05 |
Performance
TGT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | PG | TGT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.1% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.5% | -3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.8% | 11.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.3% | 16.6% |
| Year to date | 11.2% | 57.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.5% | 71% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | PG | TGT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 82 | 44.3 |
| ADX (14) | 28.1 | 12 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.4% | -3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.4% | 16.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.9% | 20.4% |
Risk
TGT is the more resilient| Metric | PG | TGT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.05 | 0.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.16 | 1.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.28 | 2.92 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -13.8% |
| Current drawdown | -4.7% | -9.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 30.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PG or TGT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 61 against TGT's 54. The edge comes from momentum and quality. TGT 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 PG or TGT the better buy right now?
PG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PG over TGT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PG leads Momentum by 39 points; TGT leads Value by 24 points; PG leads Quality by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PG or TGT?
Analyst price targets imply +0.9% upside for PG and +0.3% for TGT. 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, PG or TGT?
TGT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TGT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, PG or TGT?
TGT 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, PG or TGT?
PG on the Momentum factor, by 39 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, PG or TGT?
TGT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TGT on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 PG more profitable than TGT?
PG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 50.2% vs 29.3%; operating margin 22.7% vs 5.6%; ttm roe 29.8% vs 26.7%.
Is PG's lead over TGT getting stronger or weaker?
PG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-30, when TGT moved ahead of PG.
What would change the PG vs TGT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TGT closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to PG's edge; TGT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; PG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 PG and TGT?
PG: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. TGT: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 PG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TGT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PG and TGT 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.