ARCC vs GOOD Stock Comparison
Compare ARCC and GOOD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ARCC and GOOD?
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 Gladstone Commercial Corporation
ARCC leads
ARCC leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GOOD on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ARCC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ares Capital Corporation
Gladstone Commercial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ARCC over GOOD, 58 versus 51 as of Sep 6, 2026. ARCC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while GOOD 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 GOOD. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ARCC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ARCC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ares Capital Corporation and Gladstone Commercial 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 ARCC and GOOD 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.
- Quality30%50 vs 19ARCC +31
- Value30%48 vs 66GOOD +18
- Momentum25%76 vs 67ARCC +9
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 60Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ARCC. ARCC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; GOOD keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ARCC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARCC and GOOD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ARCC (Ares Capital Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
GOOD (Gladstone Commercial Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 17.7% against 11.5%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
ARCCARCC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GOODGOOD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
ARCCARCC on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
ARCCARCC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GOODGOOD 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 GOOD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ARCC | GOOD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.2% | -0.8% | GOOD has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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
2 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 | ARCC | 58 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | ARCCon balance | revenue growth 120.1% vs 5%; EPS growth 84.6% vs 37.5%; TTM ROE 6.8% vs 11.7%; gross margin 67% vs 15.9%; operating margin 62.9% vs 39.1% — ARCC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GOOD | Value 48 vs 66 |
| Technicals | GOOD | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs 2.3%; vs 200-day 3.9% vs 8.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | GOOD | Target upside -5.2% vs -0.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARCC and GOOD 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 7 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 ARCC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5ARCC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ARCC +7
- 58 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- ARCC +15
- 62 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- ARCC +18
- 64 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- ARCC +9
- 55 vs 46
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.10%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.8%)
ARCC 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 +0.15%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.69%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1GOOD closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARCC's edge.
- 2GOOD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ARCC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate ARCC's advantage entirely.
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
ARCC leads on balance| Metric | ARCC | GOOD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 120.1% | 5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 84.6% | 37.5% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 15.9% |
| Operating margin | 62.9% | 39.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.8% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.14 | 5.46 |
Performance
GOOD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ARCC | GOOD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | 0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.1% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.7% | 2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.6% | 6.1% |
| Year to date | -0.9% | 22.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10.2% | 0.3% |
Technicals
GOOD has the stronger structure| Metric | ARCC | GOOD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.9 | 56.1 |
| ADX (14) | 28.2 | 12.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | 2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.9% | 8.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.5% | 17.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ARCC | GOOD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.63 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.91 | -0.16 |
| Max drawdown | -22.4% | -21.7% |
| Current drawdown | -10.9% | -1.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.3% | 22.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARCC or GOOD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ARCC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 58 against GOOD's 51. The edge comes from quality and momentum. GOOD 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 GOOD the better buy right now?
ARCC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ARCC over GOOD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ARCC leads Quality by 31 points; GOOD leads Value by 18 points; ARCC leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARCC or GOOD?
Analyst price targets imply -5.2% upside for ARCC and -0.8% for GOOD, so the Street currently favors GOOD. 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 GOOD?
GOOD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GOOD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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 GOOD?
ARCC 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 GOOD?
ARCC on the Momentum factor, by 9 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 GOOD?
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. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ARCC more profitable than GOOD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67% vs 15.9%; operating margin 62.9% vs 39.1%; ttm roe 6.8% vs 11.7%. ARCC leads on two measures and GOOD on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is ARCC's lead over GOOD getting stronger or weaker?
ARCC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ARCC vs GOOD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GOOD closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARCC's edge; GOOD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; ARCC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate ARCC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ARCC and GOOD?
ARCC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GOOD: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 ARCC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GOOD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ARCC and GOOD with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.