AMTM vs BFC Stock Comparison
AMTM currently leads BFC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 50. The clearest difference is value, while BFC has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AMTM and BFC?
AMTM leads the current stock comparison as Amentum Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amentum Holdings, Inc. vs Bank First Corporation
AMTM leads
AMTM leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from BFC.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AMTM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amentum Holdings, Inc.
Bank First Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMTM over BFC, 55 versus 50 as of Oct 31, 2026. AMTM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while BFC holds the stronger quality profile. AMTM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMTM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. AMTM lead: Reversed — BFC led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AMTM now leads by 5.
Compare Amentum Holdings, Inc. and Bank First 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 AMTM 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.
- Quality26 vs 70BFC +44
- Value74 vs 33AMTM +41
- Momentum73 vs 49AMTM +24
- Risk Resilience44 vs 48BFC +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AMTM. AMTM’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; BFC keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
AMTM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMTM and BFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMTM (Amentum Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
BFC (Bank First Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, 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
AMTMAMTM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AMTMAMTM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AMTMAMTM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 points.
Momentum
AMTMAMTM on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
BFCBFC on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
AMTMAMTM 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 | AMTM | BFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.6% | +8% | AMTM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +56.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMTM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AMTM | 55 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | BFCon balance | revenue growth 0.3% vs 0.4%; EPS growth 22.7% vs -2.7%; TTM ROE 4.4% vs 11.2%; gross margin 8.7% vs 75.1%; operating margin 4.1% vs 34.1% — BFC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AMTM | Value 74 vs 33 |
| Technicals | BFC | Price vs 50-day 10.7% vs -1%; vs 200-day -11.9% vs 2.1% |
| Risk Resilience | BFC | Risk Resilience 44 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | AMTM | Target upside 20.6% vs 8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMTM and BFC 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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 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 AMTM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28AMTM lead: Reversed — BFC led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AMTM now leads by 5.
- Today
- AMTM +5
- 55 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- AMTM +7
- 55 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- BFC +5
- 43 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- BFC +6
- 46 vs 52
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 11 when BFC moved ahead of AMTM.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AMTM
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (24.51%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only BFC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.86%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
AMTM 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 -0.91%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.06%, 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.
- 1BFC closes the Value gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMTM's edge.
- 2BFC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3AMTM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
BFC leads on balance| Metric | AMTM | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.3% | 0.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.7% | -2.7% |
| Gross margin | 8.7% | 75.1% |
| Operating margin | 4.1% | 34.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.4% | 11.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.81 | 0.1 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AMTM | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.6% | 4.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 19.7% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | -2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.4% | 2.1% |
| Year to date | -25.2% | 21.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.8% | 12.5% |
Technicals
BFC has the stronger structure| Metric | AMTM | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.1 | 49.8 |
| ADX (14) | 26.3 | 28.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.7% | -1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.9% | 2.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.9% | 24.4% |
Risk
BFC is the more resilient| Metric | AMTM | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.13 | 0.4 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | 0.76 |
| Max drawdown | -51.7% | -14.2% |
| Current drawdown | -42.2% | -6.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.8% | 23.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMTM or BFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMTM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 55 against BFC's 50. The edge comes from value and momentum. BFC is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 AMTM or BFC the better buy right now?
AMTM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AMTM over BFC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BFC leads Quality by 44 points; AMTM leads Value by 41 points; AMTM leads Momentum by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMTM or BFC?
Analyst price targets imply +20.6% upside for AMTM and +8% for BFC, so the Street currently favors AMTM. 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, AMTM or BFC?
AMTM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AMTM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 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, AMTM or BFC?
AMTM 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, AMTM or BFC?
AMTM on the Momentum factor, by 24 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, AMTM or BFC?
BFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BFC on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 AMTM more profitable than BFC?
BFC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 8.7% vs 75.1%; operating margin 4.1% vs 34.1%; ttm roe 4.4% vs 11.2%.
Is AMTM's lead over BFC getting stronger or weaker?
AMTM lead: Reversed — BFC led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AMTM now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-11, when BFC moved ahead of AMTM.
What would change the AMTM vs BFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BFC closes the Value gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMTM's edge; BFC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; AMTM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 AMTM and BFC?
AMTM: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. BFC: 2 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 AMTM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On BFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AMTM 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.