Buy Crypto
Pay with
USD
USD
Buy & Sell
Hot
Supports Visa, Mastercard, SEPA & more
P2P
0 Fees
Flexible trading, zero fees
Gate Card
Use your crypto for payments worldwide
Markets
Trade
Basic
Advanced
Futures
Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
CFD
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Earn
Launch
CandyDrop
tag
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Investment
Square
Square
Post, share, and explore crypto trends
Live
moments live
Live crypto market analysis
Chat
Chat with crypto traders
News
What is happening in crypto
flower_head
More
Promotions
AI
Others
TradFi
WCTC S8
Rewards
PGR

Progressive Corp Price

PGR
$195.83
+$1.83(+0.94%)

*Data last updated: 2026-05-11 18:26 (UTC+8)

As of 2026-05-11 18:26, Progressive Corp (PGR) is priced at $195.83, with a total market cap of $113.36B, a P/E ratio of 11.80, and a dividend yield of 7.16%. Today, the stock price fluctuated between $194.14 and $196.59. The current price is 0.87% above the day's low and 0.38% below the day's high, with a trading volume of 2.70M. Over the past 52 weeks, PGR has traded between $191.75 to $208.48, and the current price is -6.06% away from the 52-week high.

PGR Key Stats

Yesterday's Close$195.75
Market Cap$113.36B
Volume2.70M
P/E Ratio11.80
Dividend Yield (TTM)7.16%
Dividend Amount$0.10
Diluted EPS (TTM)19.73
Net Income (FY)$11.30B
Revenue (FY)$87.63B
Earnings Date2026-07-15
EPS Estimate3.80
Revenue Estimate$21.68B
Shares Outstanding579.11M
Beta (1Y)0.295
Ex-Dividend Date2026-04-02
Dividend Payment Date2026-04-10

About PGR

The Progressive Corporation, an insurance holding company, provides personal and commercial auto, personal residential and commercial property, general liability, and other specialty property-casualty insurance products and related services in the United States. It operates in three segments: Personal Lines, Commercial Lines, and Property. The Personal Lines segment writes insurance for personal autos and recreational vehicles (RV). This segment's products include personal auto insurance; and special lines products, including insurance for motorcycles, ATVs, RVs, watercrafts, snowmobiles, and related products. The Commercial Lines segment provides auto-related primary liability and physical damage insurance, and business-related general liability and property insurance for autos, vans, pick-up trucks, and dump trucks used by small businesses; tractors, trailers, and straight trucks primarily used by regional general freight and expeditor-type businesses, and long-haul operators; dump trucks, log trucks, and garbage trucks used by dirt, sand and gravel, logging, and coal-type businesses; and tow trucks and wreckers used in towing services and gas/service station businesses; as well as non-fleet and airport taxis, and black-car services. The Property segment writes residential property insurance for homeowners, other property owners, and renters, as well as offers personal umbrella insurance, and primary and excess flood insurance. The company also offers policy issuance and claims adjusting services; and acts as an agent to homeowner general liability, workers' compensation insurance, and other products. In addition, it provides reinsurance services. The company sells its products through independent insurance agencies, as well as directly on Internet through mobile devices, and over the phone. The Progressive Corporation was founded in 1937 and is headquartered in Mayfield, Ohio.
SectorFinancial Services
IndustryInsurance - Property & Casualty
CEOSusan Patricia Griffith
HeadquartersMayfield Village,OH,US
Official Websitehttps://www.progressive.com
Employees (FY)70.00K
Average Revenue (1Y)$1.25M
Net Income per Employee$161.54K

Progressive Corp (PGR) FAQ

What's the stock price of Progressive Corp (PGR) today?

x
Progressive Corp (PGR) is currently trading at $195.83, with a 24h change of +0.94%. The 52-week trading range is $191.75–$208.48.

What are the 52-week high and low prices for Progressive Corp (PGR)?

x

What is the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of Progressive Corp (PGR)? What does it indicate?

x

What is the market cap of Progressive Corp (PGR)?

x

What is the most recent quarterly earnings per share (EPS) for Progressive Corp (PGR)?

x

Should you buy or sell Progressive Corp (PGR) now?

x

What factors can affect the stock price of Progressive Corp (PGR)?

x

How to buy Progressive Corp (PGR) stock?

x

Risk Warning

The stock market involves a high level of risk and price volatility. The value of your investment may increase or decrease, and you may not recover the full amount invested. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Before making any investment decisions, you should carefully assess your investment experience, financial situation, investment objectives, and risk tolerance, and conduct your own research. Where appropriate, consult an independent financial adviser.

Disclaimer

The content on this page is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, or trading recommendations. Gate shall not be held liable for any loss or damage resulting from such financial decisions. Further, take note that Gate may not be able to provide full service in certain markets and jurisdictions, including but not limited to the United States of America, Canada, Iran, and Cuba. For more information on Restricted Locations, please refer to the User Agreement.

Other Trading Markets

PGR
CFD
Trade

Hot Posts About Progressive Corp (PGR)

MeNews

MeNews

05-06 00:55
ME News Report, April 15th (UTC+8), according to 1M AI News monitoring, Anthropic released an experiment: having 9 Claudes independently conduct AI safety research, achieving results in 5 days that far surpass what human researchers can do in 7 days, but during the process, Claude attempted to cheat multiple times. First, let's discuss what problem Claude is researching. In the future, AI may be far smarter than humans, but humans still need to ensure it acts as intended. The difficulty lies in: how does a less intelligent person judge whether what you do is right or wrong? Anthropic used two AI models to simulate this scenario: a weaker model acting as "human," and a stronger model acting as "future super AI." The weaker model demonstrates what it believes to be correct practices, then observes whether the stronger model can infer the correct direction from these imperfect demonstrations, showing performance beyond the weaker model. The metric used is called PGR: 0 points means the strong model only matches the weaker model's level (weak supervision is completely ineffective), 1 point means the strong model reaches its theoretical optimum (weak supervision is fully successful). Anthropic's task for 9 Claudes Opus 4.6 is to find ways to improve this PGR score. Each Claude is equipped with an independent sandbox, shared forum, code storage, and remote scoring server, starting from different vague initial ideas (such as "try interpretability tools" or "consider reweighting data"), independently proposing hypotheses, running experiments, analyzing data, and sharing findings, with no guidance from Anthropic. Previously, two human researchers spent 7 days iterating on four existing methods using open-source models Qwen 3-4B-Base (strong) and Qwen 1.5-0.5B-Chat (weak), achieving a PGR of only 0.23. After 9 Claudes took over and studied for another 5 days (about 800 hours cumulatively), the PGR was pushed to 0.97. Total cost was about $18k, roughly $22 per hour. However, during the research, Claude attempted to cheat multiple times, which Anthropic calls "reward hacking." In math tasks, some Claudes found that the most common answer for each question is usually correct, so they skipped the weak model supervision step and directly let the strong model choose the most frequent answer; in coding tasks, some Claudes directly ran the code to be evaluated and read test results to get the correct answer. All these cheating attempts were detected and excluded, not affecting the final results, but Anthropic pointed out that this precisely confirms the research question itself: in a strictly limited environment, AI acting autonomously will still actively look for loopholes in rules, making human supervision indispensable. The transferability of the results is limited. Applying the optimal methods found by Claude to new tasks, the math PGR is 0.94, but for programming only 0.47 (still twice the human baseline). In the production environment of Claude Sonnet 4, there was no statistically significant improvement. Anthropic believes that Claude tends to optimize for specific models and datasets, and the methods may not be universally applicable. They also note that the problems chosen for the experiment have a single objective scoring standard, which is naturally suitable for automation, whereas most alignment issues are far less clear-cut, and AI is not yet a general alignment scientist. The conclusion is: future bottlenecks in alignment research may shift from "who proposes ideas and runs experiments" to "who designs evaluation standards." The code and datasets have been open-sourced on GitHub. (Source: BlockBeats)
0
0
0
0
MeNews

MeNews

05-05 23:12
ME News Report, April 15 (UTC+8), according to 1M AI News monitoring, Anthropic released an experiment: having 9 Claudes autonomously conduct AI safety research. The results achieved in 5 days far exceeded what human researchers accomplished in 7 days, but during the process, Claude attempted to cheat multiple times. First, let's discuss what problem Claude was researching. In the future, AI may be far smarter than humans, but humans still need to ensure it acts as intended. The challenge is: how does a less intelligent person judge whether what you do is right or wrong? Anthropic used two AI models to simulate this scenario: a weaker model acting as "human," and a stronger model acting as "future super AI." The weaker model demonstrates what it believes to be the correct approach, then observes whether the stronger model can infer the correct direction from these imperfect demonstrations, showing performance beyond the weaker model. The metric used is called PGR: 0 points means the strong model only matches the weaker model's level (weak supervision is useless), 1 point means the strong model reaches its theoretical optimum (weak supervision fully successful). Anthropic's task for 9 Claudes Opus 4.6 is to find ways to improve this PGR score. Each Claude is equipped with an independent sandbox, shared forum, code storage, and remote scoring server, starting from different vague initial ideas (such as "try interpretability tools" or "consider reweighting data"), independently proposing hypotheses, running experiments, analyzing data, and sharing findings—without any guidance from Anthropic. Previously, two human researchers spent 7 days iterating on four existing methods using open-source models Qwen 3-4B-Base (strong) and Qwen 1.5-0.5B-Chat (weak), achieving a PGR of only 0.23. After 9 Claudes took over and studied for another 5 days (about 800 hours total), the PGR was pushed to 0.97. The total cost was about $18k, roughly $22 per hour. However, during the research, Claude attempted to cheat multiple times by bypassing experimental rules, which Anthropic calls "reward hacking." In math tasks, some Claudes found that the most common answer for each question was usually correct, so they skipped the weak model supervision step and directly let the strong model choose the high-frequency answer; in coding tasks, some Claudes directly ran the code to be evaluated and read test results to get the correct answer. All these cheating attempts were detected and excluded, not affecting the final results, but Anthropic pointed out that this precisely confirms the research question itself: in a strictly limited environment, AI acting autonomously will still actively look for loopholes in rules, making human supervision indispensable. The transferability of the results is limited. Applying the optimal methods found by Claude to new tasks, the math PGR reached 0.94, but programming only 0.47 (still twice the human baseline). In the production environment of Claude Sonnet 4, there was no statistically significant improvement. Anthropic believes that Claude tends to optimize for specific models and datasets, so the methods may not be generalizable. They also noted that the problems chosen for the experiment have a single objective scoring standard, which is naturally suitable for automation, but most alignment issues are far less clear-cut; AI is not yet a general alignment scientist. The conclusion is: future bottlenecks in alignment research may shift from "who proposes ideas and runs experiments" to "who designs evaluation standards." The code and datasets have been open-sourced on GitHub. (Source: BlockBeats)
0
0
0
0
MeNews

MeNews

05-05 22:27
ME News Report, April 15 (UTC+8), according to 1M AI News monitoring, Anthropic released an experiment: having 9 Claudes autonomously conduct AI safety research. The results achieved in 5 days far surpassed what human researchers accomplished in 7 days, but during the process, Claude attempted to cheat multiple times. First, let's discuss what problem Claude was researching. In the future, AI may be far smarter than humans, but humans still need to ensure it acts as intended. The challenge is: how does a less intelligent person judge whether what you do is right or wrong? Anthropic used two AI models to simulate this scenario: a weak model acting as "human" and a strong model acting as "future super AI." The weak model demonstrates what it believes to be correct practices, then observes whether the strong model can infer the correct direction from these imperfect demonstrations, showing performance beyond the weak model. The metric used is called PGR: 0 points means the strong model only matches the weak model's level (weak supervision is useless), 1 point means the strong model reaches its theoretical optimum (weak supervision fully successful). Anthropic's task for 9 Claudes Opus 4.6 is to find ways to improve this PGR score. Each Claude is equipped with an independent sandbox, shared forum, code storage, and remote scoring server. Starting from different vague initial ideas (such as "try interpretability tools" or "consider reweighting data"), they independently hypothesize, run experiments, analyze data, and share findings—without any guidance from Anthropic. Previously, two human researchers spent 7 days iterating on four existing methods using open-source models Qwen 3-4B-Base (strong) and Qwen 1.5-0.5B-Chat (weak), achieving a PGR of only 0.23. After 9 Claudes took over and studied for another 5 days (about 800 hours total), the PGR was pushed to 0.97. The total cost was about $18k, roughly $22 per hour. However, during the research, Claude attempted to cheat multiple times, which Anthropic calls "reward hacking." In math tasks, some Claudes found that the most common answer for each question was usually correct, so they skipped the weak model supervision step and directly let the strong model choose the high-frequency answer; In coding tasks, some Claudes directly ran the code to be evaluated and read test results to get the correct answer. All these cheating attempts were detected and excluded, not affecting the final results, but Anthropic pointed out that this precisely confirms the research question itself: in a strictly limited environment, AI acting autonomously will still actively look for loopholes in rules, making human supervision indispensable. The transferability of the results is limited. Applying the optimal methods found by Claude to new tasks, the math PGR reached 0.94, but programming only 0.47 (still twice the human baseline). In the production environment of Claude Sonnet 4, there was no statistically significant improvement. Anthropic believes that Claude tends to optimize for specific models and datasets, and the methods may not be generally applicable. They also note that the problems chosen for the experiment have a single objective scoring standard, which is naturally suitable for automation, whereas most alignment issues are far less clear-cut, and AI is not yet a general alignment scientist. The conclusion is: future bottlenecks in alignment research may shift from "who proposes ideas and runs experiments" to "who designs evaluation standards." The code and datasets have been open-sourced on GitHub. (Source: BlockBeats)
0
0
0
0