Principal Financial holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Equitable still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Principal Financial is in better shape — its trend is intact while Equitable's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Principal 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.
The lead is spread across stability and growth, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. Principal Financial Group, Inc. leads by 10 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Asset Management
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. EQH and PFG share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Equitable and Principal Financial each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Principal Financial Group, Inc. still looks cheaper, even though Equitable Holdings, Inc. remains structurally stronger.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where EQH and PFG each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Equitable, with a forward P/E that is 5.1 turns lower there.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the EQH vs PFG comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how EQH and PFG 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.