PRU vs WTW Stock Comparison
Compare PRU and WTW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PRU and WTW?
PRU leads the current stock comparison as Prudential Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Prudential Financial, Inc. vs Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company
PRU leads
PRU leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WTW on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PRU, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Prudential Financial, Inc.
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PRU over WTW, 56 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. PRU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while WTW holds the stronger quality profile. PRU also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WTW. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PRU today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. PRU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Prudential Financial, Inc. and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company 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 PRU and WTW 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.
- Value70 vs 38PRU +32
- Momentum43 vs 18PRU +25
- Risk Resilience73 vs 52PRU +21
- Quality46 vs 60WTW +14
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PRU. PRU’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; WTW 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 +5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
PRU's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PRU and WTW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PRU (Prudential Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
WTW (Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, 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
PRUPRU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PRUPRU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PRUPRU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
PRUPRU on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
PRUPRU on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
WTWWTW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PRU, analyst targets favor WTW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PRU | WTW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -14.5% | +10% | WTW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.2% | +37.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 11 | 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 PRU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PRU | 56 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | WTWon balance | revenue growth 0.7% vs 2.2%; EPS growth 63.4% vs -22.1%; TTM ROE 12% vs 20%; gross margin 30.8% vs 53.8%; operating margin 7.7% vs 22.2% — WTW takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PRU | Value 70 vs 38 |
| Technicals | PRU | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day 9.5% vs 5.1% |
| Risk Resilience | PRU | Risk Resilience 73 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | WTW | Target upside -14.5% vs 10% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PRU and WTW 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 14 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 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 PRU.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PRU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PRU +14
- 56 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- PRU +8
- 60 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- PRU +11
- 61 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- PRU +7
- 66 vs 59
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.61%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.34%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
PRU 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 +0.64%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.06%, 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.
- 1WTW closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to PRU's edge.
- 2WTW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3PRU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
WTW leads on balance| Metric | PRU | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.7% | 2.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 63.4% | -22.1% |
| Gross margin | 30.8% | 53.8% |
| Operating margin | 7.7% | 22.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12% | 20% |
| Debt to equity | 0.65 | 0.92 |
Performance
PRU leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PRU | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -6.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.5% | -7.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.7% | 19.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 24.5% | 8.8% |
| Year to date | 5% | -4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.9% | -5.1% |
Technicals
PRU has the stronger structure| Metric | PRU | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.9 | 32.1 |
| ADX (14) | 20.2 | 30 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.5% | 5.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.8% | 27.3% |
Risk
PRU is the more resilient| Metric | PRU | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.65 | -0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.45 | -0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.59 | -0.14 |
| Max drawdown | -22.5% | -30.8% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -10.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.8% | 30.4% |
| 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, PRU or WTW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PRU is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against WTW's 42. The edge comes from value and momentum. WTW 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 PRU or WTW the better buy right now?
PRU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 PRU over WTW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PRU leads Value by 32 points; PRU leads Momentum by 25 points; PRU leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PRU or WTW?
Analyst price targets imply -14.5% upside for PRU and +10% for WTW, so the Street currently favors WTW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PRU. 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, PRU or WTW?
PRU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PRU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, PRU or WTW?
PRU 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, PRU or WTW?
PRU on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, PRU or WTW?
PRU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PRU on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 PRU more profitable than WTW?
WTW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 30.8% vs 53.8%; operating margin 7.7% vs 22.2%; ttm roe 12% vs 20%.
Is PRU's lead over WTW getting stronger or weaker?
PRU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the PRU vs WTW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WTW closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to PRU's edge; WTW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; PRU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 PRU and WTW?
PRU: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. WTW: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 PRU is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WTW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PRU and WTW 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.