ARES vs BLK Stock Comparison

Compare ARES and BLK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.

Market data as of Sep 11, 2026 market close· AIQ score gap 9 points
ARES
Financial Services
vs
BLK
Financial Services
ARES
Ares Management Corporation
Price
$132
Day move
+0.77%
AIQ Score
31/100
Best edge
Momentum
Sector
Financial Services
BLK
BlackRock, Inc.
Leads
Price
$1,080
Day move
+1.62%
AIQ Score
40/100
Best edge
Risk Resilience
Sector
Financial Services

What is the main difference between ARES and BLK?

BLK leads the current stock comparison as BlackRock, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

Ares Management Corporation vs BlackRock, Inc.

Data as of Sep 11, 2026· market close· Financial Services· Coverage 66/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictFragileAIQ Comparison Conviction 4/10

BLK leads

BLK leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.

Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BLK, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 3 of 6Comparison trend: Weakening
ARES

Ares Management Corporation

AIQ Score
31/100
AIQ Edge Score
1/10
BLK

BlackRock, Inc.

Leads
AIQ Score
40/100
AIQ Edge Score
2/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BLK over ARES, 40 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. BLK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while ARES holds the stronger momentum profile. BLK also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BLK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. BLK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 9 points over 30 sessions.

Compare Ares Management Corporation and BlackRock, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Price-return comparison using available daily close history.

ARES
+65.9%
BLK
+15.9%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000

ARES $16,594 · BLK $11,595

Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.

Compare ARES and BLK against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

ARES advantage
0
BLK advantage
  • Risk Resilience39 vs 63
    BLK +24
  • Quality43 vs 63
    BLK +20
  • Momentum21 vs 15
    ARES +6
  • Value24 vs 27
    Even

3 of 6 evidence groups favor BLK. BLK’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; ARES keeps a meaningful momentum edge.

What changed since the last close

Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.

ARES-6 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum -22

New signals

  • ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.53%)
  • Keltner Channel Breakdown bearish, volatility, short horizon
  • Downtrend Structure Active bearish, trend, long horizon
BLK0 AIQ

No factor moved materially.

No new signals fired.

BLK's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARES and BLK both carry a full feed there.

The central trade-off

BLK (BlackRock, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.

ARES (Ares Management Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 33.9% against 22.2%.

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

BLK

BLK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.

Growth

BLK

BLK on combined revenue and EPS growth.

Value

Even

The two are level on Value.

Momentum

ARES

ARES on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.

Lower downside

BLK

BLK on Risk Resilience, by 24 points.

Analyst upside

BLK

BLK 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.

MeasureARESBLKNote
Implied upside to target+12%+21.1%BLK has more room
Target dispersion+27.1%+26.6%Lower is tighter analyst agreement
ConsensusBuyBuyContext, not a primary driver
Analysts covering67Higher coverage generally improves confidence

Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.

AIQ Agreement Matrix

3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BLK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreBLK31 vs 40
FundamentalsARESon balancerevenue growth -6.8% vs 5.8%; EPS growth -5.8% vs -13.3%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 11.7%; gross margin 62.7% vs 55.7%; operating margin 23.2% vs 31.1% — ARES takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them
ValuationEvenValue 24 vs 27
TechnicalsEvenPrice vs 50-day -0.7% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day -1.8% vs 0.2%
Risk ResilienceBLKRisk Resilience 39 vs 63
Analyst expectationsBLKTarget upside 12% vs 21.1%

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARES and BLK and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Fragile

The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.

  • The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
  • Only 3 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 BLK.

How the comparison changed

119 daily snapshots · May 4 Sep 10

BLK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 9 points over 30 sessions.

May 4ARES leads above the line · BLK leads belowSep 10
Today
BLK +9
31 vs 40
7 sessions ago
BLK +6
41 vs 47
30 sessions ago
BLK +12
45 vs 57
90 sessions ago
BLK +14
32 vs 46

The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 15 when BLK moved ahead of ARES.

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.

ARESConflicted

2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

  • Death Cross Active bearish, trend, long horizon (0.41%)
  • BB Lower Band Breach bullish, volatility, short horizon
  • Keltner Channel Breakdown bearish, volatility, short horizon
BLKConflicted

3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted

  • Golden Cross Active bullish, trend, long horizon (3.67%)
  • BB Lower Band Breach bullish, volatility, short horizon
  • Keltner Channel Breakdown bearish, volatility, short horizon

BLK 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.

ARESDivergence

Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.77%, AIQ -6 points).

BLKNo material change

Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.62%, 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.

  1. 1ARES closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to BLK's edge.
  2. 2ARES's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
  3. 3BLK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
  4. 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate BLK'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

ARES leads on balance
MetricARESBLK
Revenue growth (YoY)-6.8%5.8%
EPS growth (YoY)-5.8%-13.3%
Gross margin62.7%55.7%
Operating margin23.2%31.1%
Return on equity (TTM)15.2%11.7%
Debt to equity3.750.26

Performance

BLK leads 4 of 6 windows
MetricARESBLK
1 week (5 sessions)-5.4%-4%
1 month (20 sessions)-8.2%-8.5%
3 months (63 sessions)1.8%5.1%
6 months (126 sessions)26.3%11.7%
Year to date-19.2%-0.7%
1 year (252 sessions)-25.9%-3.8%

Technicals

Split
MetricARESBLK
RSI (14)31.829.5
ADX (14)22.526.2
Price vs 50-day-0.7%-1.8%
Price vs 200-day-1.8%0.2%
Volatility (1M, annualized)33.9%22.2%

Risk

BLK is the more resilient
MetricARESBLK
Beta1.721.19
Sharpe ratio-0.53-0.15
Sortino ratio-0.74-0.22
Max drawdown-47.8%-23.3%
Current drawdown-29.3%-11.7%
Annualized volatility44.4%27.5%
Value at risk (95%)-4.6%-2.6%

Straight answers

Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.

Which is better, ARES or BLK?

On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BLK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 40 against ARES's 31. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. ARES is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 ARES or BLK the better buy right now?

BLK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 BLK over ARES?

The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BLK leads Risk Resilience by 24 points; BLK leads Quality by 20 points; ARES leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.

Which has more analyst upside, ARES or BLK?

Analyst price targets imply +12% upside for ARES and +21.1% for BLK, so the Street currently favors BLK. 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, ARES or BLK?

Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, ARES or BLK?

BLK 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, ARES or BLK?

ARES on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, ARES or BLK?

BLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BLK on Risk Resilience, by 24 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 ARES more profitable than BLK?

The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 62.7% vs 55.7%; operating margin 23.2% vs 31.1%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 11.7%. ARES leads on two measures and BLK 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 BLK's lead over ARES getting stronger or weaker?

BLK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 9 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-15, when BLK moved ahead of ARES.

What would change the ARES vs BLK verdict?

The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ARES closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to BLK's edge; ARES's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BLK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate BLK's advantage entirely.

What do the current signals say about ARES and BLK?

ARES: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. BLK: 3 bullish / 2 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 ARES is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On BLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).

Compare ARES and BLK 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.