The structural profiles are close, with Citizens Financial carrying a narrow edge on growth. Equitable still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Citizens Financial is in better shape — its trend is intact while Equitable's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Citizens Financial's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
Growth still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The match is driven mainly by investment intensity and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. looks stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Equitable Holdings, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
Where CFG and EQH each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Equitable, with a forward P/E that is 4.7 turns lower there.
The main read on growth is clearer than the broader score gap.
Break down the CFG vs EQH comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CFG and EQH each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.