PGR vs WRB Stock Comparison
Compare PGR and WRB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PGR and WRB?
WRB leads the current stock comparison as W. R. Berkley Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Progressive Corporation vs W. R. Berkley Corporation
WRB leads
WRB leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from PGR. Wall Street currently favors PGR on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support WRB, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
The Progressive Corporation
W. R. Berkley Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WRB over PGR, 58 versus 57 as of Sep 11, 2026. WRB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while PGR holds the stronger quality profile. WRB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PGR. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WRB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. WRB lead: Reversed — PGR led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WRB now leads by 1.
Compare The Progressive Corporation and W. R. Berkley Corporation 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 PGR and WRB 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 Resilience46 vs 62WRB +16
- Momentum41 vs 54WRB +13
- Quality74 vs 66PGR +8
- Value59 vs 53PGR +6
1 of 6 evidence groups favor WRB. WRB’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; PGR keeps a meaningful quality 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
No new signals fired.
WRB's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PGR and WRB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WRB (W. R. Berkley Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
PGR (The Progressive Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, value, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 27.5% against 15.3%.
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
WRBWRB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WRBWRB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PGRPGR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
WRBWRB on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
WRBWRB on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
PGRPGR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WRB, analyst targets favor PGR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PGR | WRB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.4% | -0.3% | PGR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22% | +27.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WRB. 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 | 57 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | PGRon balance | revenue growth 6.5% vs 85.2%; EPS growth 18.1% vs -11.5%; TTM ROE 35.4% vs 19.6%; gross margin 26.9% vs 44.8%; operating margin 16.2% vs 13.7% — PGR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PGR | Value 59 vs 53 |
| Technicals | PGR | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs -1.6%; vs 200-day 2.7% vs 1.3% |
| Risk Resilience | WRB | Risk Resilience 46 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | PGR | Target upside 2.4% vs -0.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PGR and WRB 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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)
- 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 WRB.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10WRB lead: Reversed — PGR led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WRB now leads by 1.
- Today
- WRB +1
- 57 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- PGR +12
- 67 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- PGR +13
- 64 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- PGR +5
- 69 vs 64
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when PGR moved ahead of WRB.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.19%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.71%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
PGR 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.66%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.21%, 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.
- 1PGR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to WRB's edge.
- 2PGR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3WRB'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
PGR leads on balance| Metric | PGR | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.5% | 85.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.1% | -11.5% |
| Gross margin | 26.9% | 44.8% |
| Operating margin | 16.2% | 13.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 35.4% | 19.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.24 | 0.28 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | PGR | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.3% | 0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.9% | 2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.4% | 3.2% |
| Year to date | -5.1% | -0.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.1% | -3.3% |
Technicals
PGR has the stronger structure| Metric | PGR | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.2 | 55.7 |
| ADX (14) | 13.2 | 15.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | -1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.7% | 1.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.5% | 15.3% |
Risk
WRB is the more resilient| Metric | PGR | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.53 | -0.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.44 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.56 | -0.27 |
| Max drawdown | -23.5% | -19% |
| Current drawdown | -13.1% | -10.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.3% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PGR or WRB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WRB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against PGR's 57. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. PGR is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 PGR or WRB the better buy right now?
WRB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WRB over PGR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WRB leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; WRB leads Momentum by 13 points; PGR leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PGR or WRB?
Analyst price targets imply +2.4% upside for PGR and -0.3% for WRB, so the Street currently favors PGR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WRB. 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, PGR or WRB?
PGR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PGR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, PGR or WRB?
WRB 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, PGR or WRB?
WRB on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, PGR or WRB?
WRB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WRB on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 PGR more profitable than WRB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 26.9% vs 44.8%; operating margin 16.2% vs 13.7%; ttm roe 35.4% vs 19.6%. PGR leads on two measures and WRB on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is WRB's lead over PGR getting stronger or weaker?
WRB lead: Reversed — PGR led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WRB now leads by 1. 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 2026-08-05, when PGR moved ahead of WRB.
What would change the PGR vs WRB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PGR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to WRB's edge; PGR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; WRB'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 PGR and WRB?
PGR: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. WRB: 2 bullish / 0 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 PGR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WRB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PGR and WRB 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.