AMSF vs BGCP Stock Comparison
Compare AMSF and BGCP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMSF and BGCP?
AMSF leads the current stock comparison as AMERISAFE, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AMERISAFE, Inc. vs BGC Partners, Inc.
AMSF leads
AMSF leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support AMSF, and its current signal state is conflicted.
AMERISAFE, Inc.
BGC Partners, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMSF over BGCP, 50 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. AMSF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AMSF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. AMSF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare AMERISAFE, Inc. and BGC Partners, Inc. 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 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.
- Value58 vs 39AMSF +19
- Quality60 vs 55AMSF +5
- Risk Resilience46 vs 41AMSF +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor AMSF. AMSF’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
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
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
AMSF's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMSF and BGCP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMSF (AMERISAFE, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
BGCP (BGC Partners, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
AMSFAMSF 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 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AMSFAMSF on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 | AMSF | BGCP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.2% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +6.1% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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 AMSF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AMSF | 50 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | BGCPon balance | revenue growth 14.8% vs -11.5%; TTM ROE 18.4% vs 19.2%; gross margin 25.8% vs 80%; operating margin 9% vs 11.9% — BGCP takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AMSF | Value 58 vs 39 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | AMSF | Risk Resilience 46 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 AMSF and BGCP 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 4 points. (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 AMSF.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AMSF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AMSF +4
- 50 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- AMSF +6
- 52 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- AMSF +2
- 48 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- AMSF +15
- 61 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.
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
No active signals
AMSF 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.45%, 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.
- 1BGCP closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMSF's edge.
- 2BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3AMSF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
BGCP leads on balance| Metric | AMSF | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.8% | -11.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 83.7% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 25.8% | 80% |
| Operating margin | 9% | 11.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.4% | 19.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 1.6 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AMSF | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.7% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.5% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -25% | — |
| Year to date | -33% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -46.2% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AMSF | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.8 | — |
| ADX (14) | 39.2 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.1% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | -26.1% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.6% | — |
Risk
AMSF is the more resilient| Metric | AMSF | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.19 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.04 | — |
| Sortino ratio | -2.53 | — |
| Max drawdown | -45.8% | — |
| Current drawdown | -45.8% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 29.8% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMSF or BGCP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMSF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against BGCP's 46. The edge comes from value 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 AMSF or BGCP the better buy right now?
AMSF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AMSF over BGCP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AMSF leads Value by 19 points; AMSF leads Quality by 5 points; AMSF leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMSF or BGCP?
Analyst price targets imply +33.2% upside for AMSF 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, AMSF or BGCP?
AMSF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AMSF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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 BGCP?
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 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, AMSF or BGCP?
AMSF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AMSF on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 BGCP?
BGCP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 25.8% vs 80%; operating margin 9% vs 11.9%; ttm roe 18.4% vs 19.2%.
Is AMSF's lead over BGCP getting stronger or weaker?
AMSF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 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 AMSF vs BGCP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BGCP closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMSF's edge; BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; AMSF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 AMSF and BGCP?
AMSF: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 AMSF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AMSF 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.