AMSF vs BFC Stock Comparison
Compare AMSF and BFC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMSF 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
AMERISAFE, Inc. vs Bank First Corporation
BFC leads
BFC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors AMSF on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BFC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
AMERISAFE, Inc.
Bank First Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BFC over AMSF, 56 versus 50 as of Sep 11, 2026. BFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while AMSF 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 AMSF. 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 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare AMERISAFE, Inc. 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 AMSF 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.
- Momentum30 vs 68BFC +38
- Value58 vs 33AMSF +25
- Quality60 vs 69BFC +9
- Risk Resilience46 vs 53BFC +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BFC. BFC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; AMSF 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 +3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
BFC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMSF 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 quality.
AMSF (AMERISAFE, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 26.6% 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
AMSFAMSF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AMSFAMSF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
BFCBFC on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
BFCBFC on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
AMSFAMSF 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 AMSF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMSF | BFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.2% | +3% | AMSF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +6.1% | +2.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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 | 50 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | AMSFon balance | revenue growth 14.8% vs 1.7%; EPS growth 83.7% vs 24.2%; TTM ROE 18.4% vs 11.1%; gross margin 25.8% vs 74.1%; operating margin 9% vs 34.5% — AMSF takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AMSF | Value 58 vs 33 |
| Technicals | BFC | Price vs 50-day -16.1% vs 1.6%; vs 200-day -26.1% vs 9.9% |
| Risk Resilience | BFC | Risk Resilience 46 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | AMSF | Target upside 33.2% vs 3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMSF 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BFC +6
- 50 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- BFC +1
- 52 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- BFC +5
- 48 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- AMSF +4
- 61 vs 57
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when AMSF moved ahead of BFC.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.31%)
- 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%)
AMSF 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.45%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1AMSF closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge.
- 2AMSF'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
AMSF leads on balance| Metric | AMSF | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.8% | 1.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 83.7% | 24.2% |
| Gross margin | 25.8% | 74.1% |
| Operating margin | 9% | 34.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.4% | 11.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.13 |
Performance
BFC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AMSF | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.7% | 1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.5% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23% | 7.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -25% | 15.6% |
| Year to date | -33% | 27.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -46.2% | 18.9% |
Technicals
BFC has the stronger structure| Metric | AMSF | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.8 | 57.6 |
| ADX (14) | 39.2 | 10.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.1% | 1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -26.1% | 9.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.6% | 18.9% |
Risk
BFC is the more resilient| Metric | AMSF | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.19 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.04 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.53 | 1.06 |
| Max drawdown | -45.8% | -14.2% |
| Current drawdown | -45.8% | -2% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.8% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMSF or BFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against AMSF's 50. The edge comes from momentum and quality. AMSF 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 AMSF 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 AMSF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BFC leads Momentum by 38 points; AMSF leads Value by 25 points; BFC leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMSF or BFC?
Analyst price targets imply +33.2% upside for AMSF and +3% for BFC, so the Street currently favors AMSF. 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, AMSF or BFC?
AMSF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AMSF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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, AMSF or BFC?
AMSF 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, AMSF or BFC?
BFC on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, AMSF or BFC?
BFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BFC on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 AMSF more profitable than BFC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 25.8% vs 74.1%; operating margin 9% vs 34.5%; ttm roe 18.4% vs 11.1%. AMSF leads on one measure and BFC on two measures, 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 BFC's lead over AMSF getting stronger or weaker?
BFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when AMSF moved ahead of BFC.
What would change the AMSF vs BFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMSF closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge; AMSF'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 AMSF and BFC?
AMSF: 2 bullish / 3 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 AMSF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On BFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AMSF 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.