ACGL vs WTW Stock Comparison
ACGL currently leads WTW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 59. The clearest difference is value, while WTW has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ACGL and WTW?
ACGL leads the current stock comparison as Arch Capital Group Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arch Capital Group Ltd. vs Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company
ACGL leads
ACGL leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WTW on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ACGL, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Arch Capital Group Ltd.
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ACGL over WTW, 67 versus 59 as of Oct 31, 2026. ACGL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while WTW holds the stronger momentum profile. ACGL 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 ACGL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. ACGL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Arch Capital Group Ltd. and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company 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 ACGL 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.
- Value63 vs 37ACGL +26
- Momentum78 vs 88WTW +10
- Quality68 vs 60ACGL +8
- Risk Resilience54 vs 52Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ACGL. ACGL’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; WTW keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ACGL's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ACGL and WTW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ACGL (Arch Capital Group Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
WTW (Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 27.8% against 20.7%.
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
ACGLACGL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ACGLACGL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ACGLACGL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
WTWWTW on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
ACGLACGL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
WTWWTW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ACGL, analyst targets favor WTW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ACGL | WTW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +3.1% | +10.2% | WTW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +23.7% | +26.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 10 | 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 ACGL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ACGL | 67 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | ACGLon balance | revenue growth 2.5% vs 2.2%; EPS growth 5.9% vs -22.1%; TTM ROE 19.5% vs 20%; gross margin 46.2% vs 53.8%; operating margin 27.4% vs 22.2% — ACGL takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ACGL | Value 63 vs 37 |
| Technicals | ACGL | Price vs 50-day 8.9% vs 2.8%; vs 200-day 6% vs 8.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 54 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | WTW | Target upside 3.1% vs 10.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ACGL and WTW and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ACGL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30ACGL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ACGL +8
- 67 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- ACGL +8
- 68 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- ACGL +12
- 58 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- ACGL +8
- 60 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when ACGL moved ahead of WTW.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only WTW
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
WTW 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.33%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.15%, 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.
- 1WTW closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACGL's edge.
- 2WTW's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ACGL's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate ACGL's advantage entirely.
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
ACGL leads on balance| Metric | ACGL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.5% | 2.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.9% | -22.1% |
| Gross margin | 46.2% | 53.8% |
| Operating margin | 27.4% | 22.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.5% | 20% |
| Debt to equity | 0.18 | 0.92 |
Performance
ACGL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ACGL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11% | 11.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.3% | -4.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.5% | 10.9% |
| Year to date | 6.9% | -2.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.6% | -2% |
Technicals
ACGL has the stronger structure| Metric | ACGL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.2 | 70.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.9 | 29.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.9% | 2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6% | 8.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.7% | 27.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ACGL | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.34 | -0.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.84 | 0.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.19 | 0.05 |
| Max drawdown | -14.1% | -28.7% |
| Current drawdown | -3.7% | -8.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 31% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ACGL or WTW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ACGL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 67 against WTW's 59. The edge comes from value and quality. WTW 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 ACGL or WTW the better buy right now?
ACGL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ACGL over WTW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ACGL leads Value by 26 points; WTW leads Momentum by 10 points; ACGL leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ACGL or WTW?
Analyst price targets imply +3.1% upside for ACGL and +10.2% for WTW, so the Street currently favors WTW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ACGL. 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, ACGL or WTW?
ACGL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ACGL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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, ACGL or WTW?
ACGL 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, ACGL or WTW?
WTW on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, ACGL or WTW?
ACGL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ACGL 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 ACGL more profitable than WTW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 46.2% vs 53.8%; operating margin 27.4% vs 22.2%; ttm roe 19.5% vs 20%. Each name leads 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 ACGL's lead over WTW getting stronger or weaker?
ACGL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when ACGL moved ahead of WTW.
What would change the ACGL 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 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACGL's edge; WTW's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ACGL's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate ACGL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ACGL and WTW?
ACGL: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. WTW: 4 bullish / 1 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 ACGL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WTW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ACGL 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.