AMTM vs BFC Stock Comparison
Compare AMTM and BFC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMTM and BFC?
BFC leads the current stock comparison as Bank First Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amentum Holdings, Inc. vs Bank First Corporation
BFC leads
BFC leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AMTM on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BFC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Amentum Holdings, Inc.
Bank First Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BFC over AMTM, 56 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. BFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while AMTM 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 AMTM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BFC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. BFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Amentum Holdings, 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 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 69BFC +43
- Value74 vs 33AMTM +41
- Momentum33 vs 68BFC +35
- Risk Resilience40 vs 53BFC +13
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BFC. BFC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; AMTM 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 +5
No new signals fired.
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 — AMTM and BFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BFC (Bank First Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
AMTM (Amentum Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 41.6% 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
BFCBFC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AMTMAMTM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 points.
Momentum
BFCBFC on the Momentum factor, by 35 points.
Lower downside
BFCBFC on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
AMTMAMTM 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 AMTM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMTM | BFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +40.2% | +3% | AMTM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.3% | +2.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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
4 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 | 44 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | BFC | revenue growth 0.3% vs 1.7%; EPS growth 22.7% vs 24.2%; TTM ROE 4.4% vs 11.1%; gross margin 8.7% vs 74.1%; operating margin 4.1% vs 34.5% |
| Valuation | AMTM | Value 74 vs 33 |
| Technicals | BFC | Price vs 50-day -8.9% vs 1.6%; vs 200-day -25.6% vs 9.9% |
| Risk Resilience | BFC | Risk Resilience 40 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | AMTM | Target upside 40.2% vs 3% |
✓ 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 rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BFC +12
- 44 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- BFC +8
- 45 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- BFC +4
- 49 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- BFC +8
- 49 vs 57
The lead changed hands 5 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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (23.12%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
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%)
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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.51%, 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.
- 1AMTM closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge.
- 2AMTM'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
BFC leads on balance| Metric | AMTM | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.3% | 1.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.7% | 24.2% |
| Gross margin | 8.7% | 74.1% |
| Operating margin | 4.1% | 34.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.4% | 11.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.81 | 0.13 |
Performance
BFC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AMTM | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | 1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.1% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.1% | 7.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.1% | 15.6% |
| Year to date | -31.1% | 27.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.8% | 18.9% |
Technicals
BFC has the stronger structure| Metric | AMTM | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.5 | 57.6 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 10.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.9% | 1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -25.6% | 9.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.6% | 18.9% |
Risk
BFC is the more resilient| Metric | AMTM | BFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.19 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.26 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.43 | 1.06 |
| Max drawdown | -48.5% | -14.2% |
| Current drawdown | -47.9% | -2% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -2.6% |
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, BFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against AMTM's 44. The edge comes from quality and momentum. AMTM 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 AMTM or BFC the better buy right now?
BFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BFC over AMTM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BFC leads Quality by 43 points; AMTM leads Value by 41 points; BFC leads Momentum by 35 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 +40.2% upside for AMTM and +3% for BFC, so the Street currently favors AMTM. 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, 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?
BFC 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?
BFC on the Momentum factor, by 35 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 13 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 74.1%; operating margin 4.1% vs 34.5%; ttm roe 4.4% vs 11.1%.
Is BFC's lead over AMTM getting stronger or weaker?
BFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 12 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 5 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: AMTM closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge; AMTM'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 AMTM and BFC?
AMTM: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. BFC: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. 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.