AAPL vs BGCP Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads BGCP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 45. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between AAPL and BGCP?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs BGC Partners, Inc.
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 4 evidence groups support AAPL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
BGC Partners, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over BGCP, 62 versus 45 as of Nov 1, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apple Inc. and BGC Partners, Inc. 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 AAPL and BGCP 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.
- Risk Resilience68 vs 41AAPL +27
- Quality80 vs 55AAPL +25
- Value38 vs 38Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
AAPL's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and BGCP both carry a full feed there.
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
AAPLAAPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AAPLAAPL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AAPL | BGCP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +45.7% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AAPL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AAPL | 62 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | AAPLon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs -11.5%; EPS growth 1% vs 0%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 19.2%; gross margin 48.7% vs 80%; operating margin 33.2% vs 11.9% — AAPL takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 38 vs 38 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 68 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and BGCP 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 17 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 AAPL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +17
- 62 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +20
- 65 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +14
- 60 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +19
- 65 vs 46
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AAPL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.30%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.7%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
AAPL 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.23%, 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.
- 1BGCP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
AAPL leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | -11.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 80% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 11.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 19.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 1.6 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AAPL | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.3% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.6% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23% | — |
| Year to date | 26.8% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AAPL | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.9 | — |
| ADX (14) | 19.6 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.5% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.2% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.6% | — |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.57 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.95 | — |
| Sortino ratio | 1.29 | — |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | — |
| Current drawdown | -1.2% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 24.1% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or BGCP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Nov 1, 2026, scoring 62 against BGCP's 45. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 AAPL or BGCP the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 1, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 of 4 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 AAPL over BGCP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; AAPL leads Quality by 25 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or BGCP?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for AAPL and not covered for BGCP. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AAPL or BGCP?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, AAPL or BGCP?
AAPL 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, AAPL or BGCP?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, AAPL or BGCP?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 AAPL more profitable than BGCP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 80%; operating margin 33.2% vs 11.9%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 19.2%. AAPL leads on two measures and BGCP 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 AAPL's lead over BGCP getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AAPL vs BGCP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BGCP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 AAPL and BGCP?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. BGCP: No active signals. 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 AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and BGCP 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.