AMTM vs BGCP Stock Comparison
Compare AMTM and BGCP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMTM and BGCP?
BGCP leads the current stock comparison as BGC Partners, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amentum Holdings, Inc. vs BGC Partners, Inc.
BGCP leads
BGCP leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from AMTM.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support BGCP, and the lead recently changed hands.
Amentum Holdings, Inc.
BGC Partners, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BGCP over AMTM, 46 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. BGCP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while AMTM holds the stronger value profile. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BGCP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. BGCP lead: Reversed — AMTM led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BGCP now leads by 2.
Compare Amentum Holdings, Inc. and BGC Partners, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare AMTM 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.
- Value74 vs 39AMTM +35
- Quality26 vs 55BGCP +29
- Risk Resilience40 vs 41Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor BGCP. BGCP’s edge is concentrated in quality; 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
BGCP's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMTM and BGCP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BGCP (BGC Partners, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
AMTM (Amentum Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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
BGCPBGCP 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 35 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
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 | AMTM | BGCP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +40.2% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +40.3% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BGCP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 44 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | BGCP | TTM ROE 4.4% vs 19.2%; gross margin 8.7% vs 80%; operating margin 4.1% vs 11.9% |
| Valuation | AMTM | Value 74 vs 39 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 40 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 AMTM 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 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 lead has been steady session to session. (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 BGCP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BGCP lead: Reversed — AMTM led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BGCP now leads by 2.
- Today
- BGCP +2
- 44 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- BGCP +1
- 45 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- AMTM +3
- 49 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- AMTM +3
- 49 vs 46
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when BGCP 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%)
No active signals
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).
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 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to BGCP's edge.
- 2AMTM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BGCP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | AMTM | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.3% | -11.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.7% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 8.7% | 80% |
| Operating margin | 4.1% | 11.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.4% | 19.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.81 | 1.6 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AMTM | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.1% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.1% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.1% | — |
| Year to date | -31.1% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.8% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AMTM | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.5 | — |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.9% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | -25.6% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.6% | — |
Risk
Split| Metric | AMTM | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.19 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.26 | — |
| Sortino ratio | -0.43 | — |
| Max drawdown | -48.5% | — |
| Current drawdown | -47.9% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMTM or BGCP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BGCP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against AMTM's 44. The edge comes from quality. 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 BGCP the better buy right now?
BGCP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BGCP over AMTM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AMTM leads Value by 35 points; BGCP leads Quality by 29 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMTM or BGCP?
Analyst price targets imply +40.2% upside for AMTM 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, AMTM or BGCP?
AMTM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AMTM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 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 BGCP?
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 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, AMTM or BGCP?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. 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 BGCP?
BGCP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 8.7% vs 80%; operating margin 4.1% vs 11.9%; ttm roe 4.4% vs 19.2%.
Is BGCP's lead over AMTM getting stronger or weaker?
BGCP lead: Reversed — AMTM led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BGCP now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when BGCP moved ahead of AMTM.
What would change the AMTM vs BGCP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMTM closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to BGCP's edge; AMTM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BGCP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 BGCP?
AMTM: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. BGCP: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on AMTM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AMTM 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.