APO vs BEN Stock Comparison
Compare APO and BEN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between APO and BEN?
APO leads the current stock comparison as Apollo Global Management, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apollo Global Management, Inc. vs Franklin Resources, Inc.
APO leads
APO leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support APO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apollo Global Management, Inc.
Franklin Resources, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors APO over BEN, 56 versus 50 as of Sep 11, 2026. APO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while BEN holds the stronger value profile. APO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor APO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. APO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apollo Global Management, Inc. and Franklin Resources, 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 APO and BEN 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.
- Quality59 vs 46APO +13
- Risk Resilience64 vs 52APO +12
- Momentum55 vs 46APO +9
- Value49 vs 55BEN +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor APO. APO’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; BEN 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 +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
No new signals fired.
APO's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — APO and BEN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
APO (Apollo Global Management, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
BEN (Franklin Resources, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals.
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
APOAPO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
APOAPO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BENBEN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
APOAPO on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
APOAPO on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
APOAPO 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 | APO | BEN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.4% | -5.4% | APO has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +31.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor APO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | APO | 56 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | APO | revenue growth 121.7% vs 2.8%; EPS growth 169.8% vs -40.4%; TTM ROE 8.6% vs 7.4%; gross margin 84.5% vs 67.6%; operating margin 24.1% vs 9.7% |
| Valuation | BEN | Value 49 vs 55 |
| Technicals | BEN | Price vs 50-day 0.9% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 0.1% vs 17.2% |
| Risk Resilience | APO | Risk Resilience 64 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | APO | Target upside 12.4% vs -5.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of APO and BEN 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 moderate at 6 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 APO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10APO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- APO +6
- 56 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- APO +1
- 56 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- APO +6
- 61 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- BEN +10
- 48 vs 58
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when APO moved ahead of BEN.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.05%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.57%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
APO 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 +0.84%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.03%, AIQ -4 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.
- 1BEN closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to APO's edge.
- 2BEN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3APO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
APO leads on balance| Metric | APO | BEN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 121.7% | 2.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 169.8% | -40.4% |
| Gross margin | 84.5% | 67.6% |
| Operating margin | 24.1% | 9.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.6% | 7.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.65 | 1.42 |
Performance
BEN leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | APO | BEN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | 2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.7% | 0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.5% | 8.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.6% | 34.8% |
| Year to date | -11.6% | 40.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.9% | 35.3% |
Technicals
BEN has the stronger structure| Metric | APO | BEN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.1 | 47.4 |
| ADX (14) | 15 | 17 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.9% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.1% | 17.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31% | 22% |
Risk
APO is the more resilient| Metric | APO | BEN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.2 | 1.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.05 | 1.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.08 | 1.7 |
| Max drawdown | -34.3% | -19.2% |
| Current drawdown | -16.2% | -5.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.2% | 28% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, APO or BEN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, APO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against BEN's 50. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. BEN 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 APO or BEN the better buy right now?
APO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor APO over BEN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. APO leads Quality by 13 points; APO leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; APO leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, APO or BEN?
Analyst price targets imply +12.4% upside for APO and -5.4% for BEN, so the Street currently favors APO. 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, APO or BEN?
BEN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BEN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, APO or BEN?
APO 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, APO or BEN?
APO on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, APO or BEN?
APO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. APO on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 APO more profitable than BEN?
APO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 84.5% vs 67.6%; operating margin 24.1% vs 9.7%; ttm roe 8.6% vs 7.4%.
Is APO's lead over BEN getting stronger or weaker?
APO 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when APO moved ahead of BEN.
What would change the APO vs BEN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BEN closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to APO's edge; BEN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; APO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 APO and BEN?
APO: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. BEN: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 APO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On BEN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare APO and BEN 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.