AGNC vs MAIN Stock Comparison
AGNC currently leads MAIN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 46. The clearest difference is value, while MAIN has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between AGNC and MAIN?
AGNC leads the current stock comparison as AGNC Investment Corp., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AGNC Investment Corp. vs Main Street Capital Corporation
AGNC leads
AGNC leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from MAIN.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support AGNC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
AGNC Investment Corp.
Main Street Capital Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AGNC over MAIN, 49 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. AGNC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while MAIN holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AGNC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AGNC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. AGNC lead: Reversed — MAIN led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AGNC now leads by 3.
Compare AGNC Investment Corp. and Main Street Capital Corporation 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 AGNC and MAIN 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.
- Value69 vs 37AGNC +32
- Risk Resilience35 vs 60MAIN +25
- Quality48 vs 63MAIN +15
- Momentum36 vs 29AGNC +7
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AGNC. AGNC’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; MAIN keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
AGNC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AGNC and MAIN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AGNC (AGNC Investment Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
MAIN (Main Street Capital Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, fundamentals.
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
AGNCAGNC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MAINMAIN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AGNCAGNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
AGNCAGNC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
MAINMAIN on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
AGNCAGNC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AGNC | MAIN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +25.3% | +4.5% | AGNC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.2% | +18% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AGNC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -1.59% | 9.99% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.560 | $2.255 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.440 | $3.630 |
| Years increased | 0 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
MAIN grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.99% a year against AGNC's -1.59%. They are ranked in different cohorts — REITs and business development companies — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AGNC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 49 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | MAINon balance | revenue growth -100% vs -8.5%; EPS growth 4.1% vs 192.6%; TTM ROE 18.3% vs 14.8%; gross margin 75.7% vs 85.3%; operating margin 112.8% vs 64.7% — MAIN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AGNC | Value 69 vs 37 |
| Technicals | MAIN | Price vs 50-day -11.5% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day -16.9% vs -4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | MAIN | Risk Resilience 35 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | AGNC | Target upside 25.3% vs 4.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AGNC and MAIN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 AGNC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AGNC lead: Reversed — MAIN led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AGNC now leads by 3.
- Today
- AGNC +3
- 49 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- MAIN +1
- 47 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- MAIN +1
- 48 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- MAIN +1
- 56 vs 57
The lead changed hands 14 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when AGNC moved ahead of MAIN.
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AGNC
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.71%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MAIN
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.07%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
AGNC 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.23%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.11%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1MAIN closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to AGNC's edge.
- 2MAIN's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3AGNC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
MAIN leads on balance| Metric | AGNC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -100% | -8.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.1% | 192.6% |
| Gross margin | 75.7% | 85.3% |
| Operating margin | 112.8% | 64.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.3% | 14.8% |
| Debt to equity | 7.16 | 0.8 |
Performance
MAIN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AGNC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.8% | -4.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.9% | -0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -19.3% | -1.3% |
| Year to date | -17.9% | -11.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11.3% | -6.7% |
Technicals
MAIN has the stronger structure| Metric | AGNC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.1 | 35.1 |
| ADX (14) | 49.8 | 24 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.5% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.9% | -4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.7% | 15.4% |
Risk
MAIN is the more resilient| Metric | AGNC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.64 | -0.4 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.95 | -0.58 |
| Max drawdown | -30.6% | -23.2% |
| Current drawdown | -27.7% | -17.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.2% | 24.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AGNC or MAIN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AGNC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 49 against MAIN's 46. The edge comes from value and momentum. MAIN is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 AGNC or MAIN the better buy right now?
AGNC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AGNC over MAIN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AGNC leads Value by 32 points; MAIN leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; MAIN leads Quality by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AGNC or MAIN?
Analyst price targets imply +25.3% upside for AGNC and +4.5% for MAIN, so the Street currently favors AGNC. 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, AGNC or MAIN?
AGNC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AGNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, AGNC or MAIN?
MAIN 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, AGNC or MAIN?
AGNC on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, AGNC or MAIN?
MAIN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAIN on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 AGNC more profitable than MAIN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 75.7% vs 85.3%; operating margin 112.8% vs 64.7%; ttm roe 18.3% vs 14.8%. AGNC leads on two measures and MAIN 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 AGNC's lead over MAIN getting stronger or weaker?
AGNC lead: Reversed — MAIN led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AGNC now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 14 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when AGNC moved ahead of MAIN.
What would change the AGNC vs MAIN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MAIN closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to AGNC's edge; MAIN's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; AGNC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 AGNC and MAIN?
AGNC: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MAIN: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 AGNC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MAIN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AGNC and MAIN 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.