ARCC vs O Stock Comparison
O currently leads ARCC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum, while ARCC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between ARCC and O?
O leads the current stock comparison as Realty Income Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ares Capital Corporation vs Realty Income Corporation
O leads
O leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from ARCC.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support O, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ares Capital Corporation
Realty Income Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors O over ARCC, 52 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. O's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while ARCC holds the stronger value profile. O also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor O today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. O lead: Reversed — ARCC led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; O now leads by 6.
Compare Ares Capital Corporation and Realty Income Corporation 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 O 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.
- Momentum31 vs 55O +24
- Value47 vs 28ARCC +19
- Risk Resilience58 vs 74O +16
- Quality50 vs 62O +12
3 of 6 evidence groups favor O. O’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; ARCC keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
O's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARCC and O both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
O (Realty Income Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
ARCC (Ares Capital Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, 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
OO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ARCCARCC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ARCCARCC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
OO on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
OO on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
OO 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 | ARCC | O | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +3.3% | +17.7% | O has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +18% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ARCC | O |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 3.71% | 4.48% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.600 | $2.801 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.920 | $3.487 |
| Years increased | — | 4 |
| No cut in window | — | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
O grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.48% a year against ARCC's 3.71%. They are ranked in different cohorts — business development companies and REITs — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor O. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | O | 46 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | ARCCon balance | revenue growth 120.1% vs -7.8%; EPS growth 84.6% vs 12.1%; TTM ROE 6.8% vs 3.4%; gross margin 67% vs 68.6%; operating margin 62.9% vs 29.2% — ARCC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ARCC | Value 47 vs 28 |
| Technicals | ARCC | Price vs 50-day -5.2% vs -5.3%; vs 200-day -3.1% vs -8.7% |
| Risk Resilience | O | Risk Resilience 58 vs 74 |
| Analyst expectations | O | Target upside 3.3% vs 17.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARCC and O 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.
- Only 3 of 6 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)
- 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 O.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20O lead: Reversed — ARCC led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; O now leads by 6.
- Today
- O +6
- 46 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- O +2
- 47 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- ARCC +4
- 48 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- ARCC +20
- 63 vs 43
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ARCC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.62%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only O
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.57%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
O 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.59%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.76%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1ARCC closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to O's edge.
- 2ARCC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3O'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
ARCC leads on balance| Metric | ARCC | O |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 120.1% | -7.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 84.6% | 12.1% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 68.6% |
| Operating margin | 62.9% | 29.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.8% | 3.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.14 | 0.07 |
Performance
O leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ARCC | O |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | 2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.4% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.9% | -13.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.4% | -12% |
| Year to date | -8.5% | -0.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.2% | -5% |
Technicals
ARCC has the stronger structure| Metric | ARCC | O |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.4 | 64.1 |
| ADX (14) | 24.7 | 38.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.2% | -5.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.1% | -8.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16% | 16.7% |
Risk
O is the more resilient| Metric | ARCC | O |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.67 | -0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.38 | -0.52 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.57 | -0.8 |
| Max drawdown | -17% | -21% |
| Current drawdown | -12% | -16.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.2% | 16.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARCC or O?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, O is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against ARCC's 46. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. ARCC 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 O the better buy right now?
O carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor O over ARCC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. O leads Momentum by 24 points; ARCC leads Value by 19 points; O leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARCC or O?
Analyst price targets imply +3.3% upside for ARCC and +17.7% for O, so the Street currently favors O. 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 O?
ARCC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ARCC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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 O?
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 O?
O on the Momentum factor, by 24 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 O?
O is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. O on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 ARCC more profitable than O?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67% vs 68.6%; operating margin 62.9% vs 29.2%; ttm roe 6.8% vs 3.4%. ARCC leads on two measures and O 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 O's lead over ARCC getting stronger or weaker?
O lead: Reversed — ARCC led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; O now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ARCC vs O verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ARCC closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to O's edge; ARCC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; o'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 ARCC and O?
ARCC: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. O: 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 O it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ARCC and O 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.