ARCC vs FSK Stock Comparison
ARCC currently leads FSK in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while FSK has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between ARCC and FSK?
ARCC leads the current stock comparison as Ares Capital Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ares Capital Corporation vs FS KKR Capital Corp.
ARCC leads
ARCC leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors FSK on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support ARCC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Ares Capital Corporation
FS KKR Capital Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ARCC over FSK, 47 versus 45 as of Oct 24, 2026. ARCC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while FSK holds the stronger value profile. ARCC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FSK. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ARCC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ARCC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ares Capital Corporation and FS KKR Capital Corp. 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 ARCC and FSK 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.
- Quality50 vs 39ARCC +11
- Value47 vs 57FSK +10
- Momentum39 vs 31ARCC +8
- Risk Resilience57 vs 57Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor ARCC. ARCC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; FSK keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
ARCC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARCC and FSK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ARCC (Ares Capital Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
FSK (FS KKR Capital Corp.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 26.4% against 17.8%.
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
ARCCARCC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FSKFSK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FSKFSK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
ARCCARCC on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
ARCCARCC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FSKFSK on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ARCC, analyst targets favor FSK. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ARCC | FSK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.9% | +11.1% | FSK has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +25.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ARCC. 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 | 47 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 120.1% vs 176.2%; EPS growth 84.6% vs 91.7%; TTM ROE 6.8% vs -6.7%; gross margin 67% vs 60.5% |
| Valuation | FSK | Value 47 vs 57 |
| Technicals | ARCC | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs -8.7%; vs 200-day -2.2% vs -8.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 57 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | FSK | Target upside 1.9% vs 11.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARCC and FSK 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 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 ARCC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23ARCC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ARCC +2
- 47 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- ARCC +2
- 47 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 44 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- ARCC +9
- 64 vs 55
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 16 when ARCC moved ahead of FSK.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only ARCC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.34%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FSK
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
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 down over the latest session (price -0.8%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.85%, 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.
- 1FSK closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARCC's edge.
- 2FSK's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ARCC'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
Split| Metric | ARCC | FSK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 120.1% | 176.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 84.6% | 91.7% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 60.5% |
| Operating margin | 62.9% | -0.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.8% | -6.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.14 | 1.23 |
Performance
ARCC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ARCC | FSK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.9% | -7.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.3% | -3.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.2% | -0.8% |
| Year to date | -7.9% | -29.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -6.4% | -30.9% |
Technicals
ARCC has the stronger structure| Metric | ARCC | FSK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.5 | 37 |
| ADX (14) | 22.9 | 31.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | -8.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.2% | -8.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.8% | 26.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ARCC | FSK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.65 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.46 | -1.07 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.7 | -1.4 |
| Max drawdown | -17% | -38.6% |
| Current drawdown | -11.4% | -35.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 33% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARCC or FSK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ARCC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 24, 2026, scoring 47 against FSK's 45. The edge comes from quality and momentum. FSK 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 ARCC or FSK the better buy right now?
ARCC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 24, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 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 ARCC over FSK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ARCC leads Quality by 11 points; FSK leads Value by 10 points; ARCC leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARCC or FSK?
Analyst price targets imply +1.9% upside for ARCC and +11.1% for FSK, so the Street currently favors FSK. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ARCC. 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, ARCC or FSK?
FSK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FSK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, ARCC or FSK?
FSK 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, ARCC or FSK?
ARCC on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, ARCC or FSK?
ARCC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ARCC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ARCC more profitable than FSK?
ARCC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 60.5%; operating margin 62.9% vs -0.3%; ttm roe 6.8% vs -6.7%.
Is ARCC's lead over FSK getting stronger or weaker?
ARCC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-24 and 2026-10-23. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-16, when ARCC moved ahead of FSK.
What would change the ARCC vs FSK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FSK closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARCC's edge; FSK's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ARCC'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 ARCC and FSK?
ARCC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FSK: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on ARCC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FSK it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ARCC and FSK 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.