PNC vs RF Stock Comparison
RF currently leads PNC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 52. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between PNC and RF?
RF leads the current stock comparison as Regions Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. vs Regions Financial Corporation
RF leads
RF leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors PNC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support RF, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
Regions Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RF over PNC, 59 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. RF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. RF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PNC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. RF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and Regions Financial 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 PNC and RF 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.
- Momentum42 vs 54RF +12
- Quality53 vs 64RF +11
- Value53 vs 56Even
- Risk Resilience64 vs 64Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor RF. RF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
RF's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PNC and RF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RF (Regions Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
PNC (The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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
RFRF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RFRF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
RFRF on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
PNCPNC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
PNCPNC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors RF, analyst targets favor PNC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PNC | RF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.4% | +17.9% | PNC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +23.8% | +24.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | PNC | RF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.49% | 10.69% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.600 | $0.620 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $6.600 | $1.030 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #166 | #87 |
RF grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.69% a year against PNC's 7.49%. 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RF | 52 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | RF | revenue growth 3.8% vs 3.4%; EPS growth 3.5% vs 12.5%; TTM ROE 12.6% vs 12.3%; gross margin 68.6% vs 77.8%; operating margin 27.2% vs 30.6% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 53 vs 56 |
| Technicals | RF | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day -3.3% vs -2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 64 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | PNC | Target upside 22.4% vs 17.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PNC and RF 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 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 RF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20RF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RF +7
- 52 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- RF +7
- 48 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- RF +4
- 47 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- RF +4
- 59 vs 63
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only RF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
RF 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.86%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.72%, 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.
- 1PNC closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to RF's edge.
- 2PNC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3RF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
RF leads on balance| Metric | PNC | RF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.8% | 3.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.5% | 12.5% |
| Gross margin | 68.6% | 77.8% |
| Operating margin | 27.2% | 30.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.6% | 12.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.59 |
Performance
RF leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | PNC | RF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | 3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.1% | -0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -12.5% | -9.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.1% | -1.8% |
| Year to date | 5.9% | 2.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.9% | 19.3% |
Technicals
RF has the stronger structure| Metric | PNC | RF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.4 | 64.7 |
| ADX (14) | 39.9 | 31.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.3% | -2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.9% | 18.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PNC | RF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.55 | 0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 0.67 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.31 | 0.95 |
| Max drawdown | -17.2% | -19.2% |
| Current drawdown | -14% | -14% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.3% | 23.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PNC or RF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against PNC's 52. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 PNC or RF the better buy right now?
RF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RF over PNC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RF leads Momentum by 12 points; RF leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PNC or RF?
Analyst price targets imply +22.4% upside for PNC and +17.9% for RF, so the Street currently favors PNC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors RF. 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, PNC or RF?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, PNC or RF?
RF 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, PNC or RF?
RF on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, PNC or RF?
PNC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PNC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PNC more profitable than RF?
RF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 68.6% vs 77.8%; operating margin 27.2% vs 30.6%; ttm roe 12.6% vs 12.3%.
Is RF's lead over PNC getting stronger or weaker?
RF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 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 not changed hands in that window.
What would change the PNC vs RF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PNC closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to RF's edge; PNC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; RF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 PNC and RF?
PNC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. RF: 2 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 PNC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PNC and RF 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.