ARCC vs MAIN Stock Comparison
Compare ARCC and MAIN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ARCC and MAIN?
ARCC leads the current stock comparison as Ares Capital Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ares Capital Corporation vs Main Street Capital Corporation
ARCC leads
ARCC leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ARCC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ares Capital Corporation
Main Street Capital Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ARCC over MAIN, 58 versus 53 as of Sep 6, 2026. ARCC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while MAIN holds the stronger quality profile. ARCC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ARCC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. ARCC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ares Capital Corporation and Main Street Capital 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 MAIN 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.
- Momentum25%76 vs 56ARCC +20
- Quality30%50 vs 63MAIN +13
- Value30%48 vs 38ARCC +10
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 61Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ARCC. ARCC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; MAIN keeps a meaningful quality 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 MAIN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ARCC (Ares Capital Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
MAIN (Main Street Capital Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals.
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
ARCCARCC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
ARCCARCC on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
ARCCARCC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | ARCC | MAIN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.2% | -5.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +14.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
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 53 |
| Fundamentals | MAINon balance | revenue growth 120.1% vs -8.5%; EPS growth 84.6% vs 192.6%; TTM ROE 6.8% vs 14.8%; gross margin 67% vs 85.3%; operating margin 62.9% vs 64.7% — MAIN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ARCC | Value 48 vs 38 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs 3.6%; vs 200-day 3.9% vs 2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside -5.2% vs -5.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARCC and MAIN 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ARCC +5
- 58 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- ARCC +8
- 62 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- ARCC +6
- 64 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- ARCC +5
- 55 vs 50
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when ARCC moved ahead of MAIN.
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
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.44%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
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 -0.67%, 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.
- 1MAIN closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARCC's edge.
- 2MAIN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ARCC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
MAIN leads on balance| Metric | ARCC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 120.1% | -8.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 84.6% | 192.6% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 85.3% |
| Operating margin | 62.9% | 64.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.8% | 14.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.14 | 0.8 |
Performance
ARCC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ARCC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.1% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.7% | 11.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.6% | 0.5% |
| Year to date | -0.9% | -4.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10.2% | -12.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ARCC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.9 | 44.6 |
| ADX (14) | 28.2 | 27.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | 3.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.9% | 2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.5% | 12.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ARCC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.63 | -0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.91 | -0.82 |
| Max drawdown | -22.4% | -26.1% |
| Current drawdown | -10.9% | -14.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.3% | 25.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARCC or MAIN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ARCC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 58 against MAIN's 53. The edge comes from momentum and value. MAIN is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 MAIN 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ARCC over MAIN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ARCC leads Momentum by 20 points; MAIN leads Quality by 13 points; ARCC leads Value by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARCC or MAIN?
Analyst price targets imply -5.2% upside for ARCC and -5.3% for MAIN. 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, ARCC or MAIN?
ARCC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ARCC 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 MAIN?
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 MAIN?
ARCC on the Momentum factor, by 20 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 MAIN?
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 MAIN?
MAIN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 85.3%; operating margin 62.9% vs 64.7%; ttm roe 6.8% vs 14.8%.
Is ARCC's lead over MAIN getting stronger or weaker?
ARCC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-08, when ARCC moved ahead of MAIN.
What would change the ARCC vs MAIN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MAIN closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARCC's edge; MAIN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ARCC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ARCC and MAIN?
ARCC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MAIN: 1 bullish / 2 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 ARCC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MAIN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ARCC and MAIN 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.