AMRZ vs BFC Stock Comparison
Compare AMRZ and BFC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMRZ and BFC?
BFC leads the current stock comparison as Bank First Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amrize Ltd vs Bank First Corporation
BFC leads
BFC leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors AMRZ on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BFC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Amrize Ltd
Bank First Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BFC over AMRZ, 56 versus 32 as of Sep 11, 2026. BFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while AMRZ holds the stronger value profile. BFC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AMRZ. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BFC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. BFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 24 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Amrize Ltd and Bank First Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare AMRZ and BFC 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.
- Momentum24 vs 68BFC +44
- Risk Resilience26 vs 53BFC +27
- Value41 vs 33AMRZ +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BFC. BFC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; AMRZ keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
BFC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMRZ and BFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BFC (Bank First Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
AMRZ (Amrize Ltd): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 28.3% against 18.9%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
BFCBFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AMRZAMRZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AMRZAMRZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
BFCBFC on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
BFCBFC on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
AMRZAMRZ on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BFC, analyst targets favor AMRZ. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMRZ | BFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +41.1% | +3% | AMRZ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +52.5% | +2.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BFC | 32 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 60.4% vs 1.7%; EPS growth 5.1% vs 24.2% |
| Valuation | AMRZ | Value 41 vs 33 |
| Technicals | BFC | Price vs 50-day -15% vs 1.6%; vs 200-day -23.3% vs 9.9% |
| Risk Resilience | BFC | Risk Resilience 26 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | AMRZ | Target upside 41.1% vs 3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMRZ and BFC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 24 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 BFC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BFC +24
- 32 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- BFC +17
- 36 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- BFC +23
- 30 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- BFC +27
- 30 vs 57
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.
2 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.14%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.59%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.0%)
AMRZ is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.2%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.53%, 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.
- 1AMRZ closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge.
- 2AMRZ's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
Split| Metric | AMRZ | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 60.4% | 1.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.1% | 24.2% |
| Gross margin | — | 74.1% |
| Operating margin | — | 34.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 11.1% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.13 |
Performance
BFC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AMRZ | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.9% | 1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.8% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -19.9% | 7.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.5% | 15.6% |
| Year to date | -20.8% | 27.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -25% | 18.9% |
Technicals
BFC has the stronger structure| Metric | AMRZ | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30 | 57.6 |
| ADX (14) | 29.6 | 10.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15% | 1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -23.3% | 9.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.3% | 18.9% |
Risk
BFC is the more resilient| Metric | AMRZ | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.35 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.71 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.21 | 1.06 |
| Max drawdown | -38.6% | -14.2% |
| Current drawdown | -38.6% | -2% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.4% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMRZ or BFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against AMRZ's 32. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. AMRZ is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 AMRZ or BFC the better buy right now?
BFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BFC over AMRZ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BFC leads Momentum by 44 points; BFC leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; AMRZ leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMRZ or BFC?
Analyst price targets imply +41.1% upside for AMRZ and +3% for BFC, so the Street currently favors AMRZ. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BFC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AMRZ or BFC?
AMRZ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AMRZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, AMRZ or BFC?
AMRZ 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, AMRZ or BFC?
BFC on the Momentum factor, by 44 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, AMRZ or BFC?
BFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BFC 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 AMRZ more profitable than BFC?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is BFC's lead over AMRZ getting stronger or weaker?
BFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 24 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AMRZ vs BFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMRZ closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge; AMRZ's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 AMRZ and BFC?
AMRZ: 2 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. BFC: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 AMRZ is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On BFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AMRZ and BFC 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.