PG vs VYM Stock Comparison
VYM currently leads PG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 61. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while PG has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between PG and VYM?
VYM leads the current stock comparison as Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Procter & Gamble Company vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
VYM leads
VYM leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from PG.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VYM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Procter & Gamble Company
Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VYM over PG, 64 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. VYM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while PG holds the stronger momentum profile. VYM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VYM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. VYM lead: Reversed — PG led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VYM now leads by 3.
Compare The Procter & Gamble Company and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF 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 VYM 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 Resilience54 vs 80VYM +26
- Value34 vs 52VYM +18
- Momentum82 vs 67PG +15
- Quality73 vs 65PG +8
2 of 4 evidence groups favor VYM. VYM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; PG keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +4
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VYM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PG and VYM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VYM (Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
PG (The Procter & Gamble Company): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 18.9% against 8.7%.
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
VYMVYM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
VYMVYM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
PGPG on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
VYMVYM on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 | VYM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.9% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +19% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VYM. 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 | 61 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VYM | Value 34 vs 52 |
| Technicals | PG | Price vs 50-day 6.4% vs 0%; vs 200-day 7.4% vs 2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VYM | Risk Resilience 54 vs 80 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PG and VYM 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 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 VYM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VYM lead: Reversed — PG led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VYM now leads by 3.
- Today
- VYM +3
- 61 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 61 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- PG +6
- 60 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- VYM +16
- 47 vs 63
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 25 when PG moved ahead of VYM.
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%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VYM
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.07%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.80%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
VYM 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, 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.
- 1PG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to VYM's edge.
- 2PG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
Split| Metric | PG | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.2% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.5% | — |
| Gross margin | 50.2% | — |
| Operating margin | 22.7% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 29.8% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | — |
Performance
PG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | PG | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.1% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.5% | 1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.8% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.3% | 4.4% |
| Year to date | 11.2% | 12.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.5% | 15.5% |
Technicals
PG has the stronger structure| Metric | PG | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 82 | 80.5 |
| ADX (14) | 28.1 | 24.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.4% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.4% | 2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.9% | 8.7% |
Risk
VYM is the more resilient| Metric | PG | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.05 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.16 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.28 | 1.71 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4.7% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 10.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PG or VYM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VYM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against PG's 61. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. PG 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 PG or VYM the better buy right now?
VYM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 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 VYM over PG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VYM leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; VYM leads Value by 18 points; PG leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PG or VYM?
Analyst price targets imply +0.9% upside for PG and not covered for VYM. 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 VYM?
VYM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VYM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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 VYM?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 VYM?
PG on the Momentum factor, by 15 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 VYM?
VYM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VYM on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 VYM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is VYM's lead over PG getting stronger or weaker?
VYM lead: Reversed — PG led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VYM now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-25, when PG moved ahead of VYM.
What would change the PG vs VYM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to VYM's edge; PG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 VYM?
PG: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. VYM: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 VYM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.