ARES vs BR Stock Comparison
Compare ARES and BR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ARES and BR?
BR leads the current stock comparison as Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ares Management Corporation vs Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.
BR leads
BR leads by 26 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 21 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support BR, and its lead is widening.
Ares Management Corporation
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BR over ARES, 57 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. BR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. BR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BR today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. BR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 26 points over 30 sessions. BR leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Ares Management Corporation and Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. 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 ARES and BR 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.
- Value24 vs 68BR +44
- Quality43 vs 66BR +23
- Risk Resilience39 vs 57BR +18
- Momentum21 vs 32BR +11
5 of 6 evidence groups favor BR. BR’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
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
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
BR's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARES and BR both carry a full feed there.
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
BRBR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BRBR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BRBR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 44 points.
Momentum
BRBR on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
BRBR on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
BRBR 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 | ARES | BR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12% | +15.9% | BR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.1% | +31.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BR | 31 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | BRon balance | revenue growth -6.8% vs 13.7%; EPS growth -5.8% vs 45.4%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 40.2%; gross margin 62.7% vs 31.8%; operating margin 23.2% vs 17.4% — BR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BR | Value 24 vs 68 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs 3%; vs 200-day -1.8% vs -4.6% |
| Risk Resilience | BR | Risk Resilience 39 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | BR | Target upside 12% vs 15.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARES and BR and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 26 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 BR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 26 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BR +26
- 31 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- BR +22
- 41 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- BR +21
- 45 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- BR +34
- 32 vs 66
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.
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
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.18%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ARES is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.77%, AIQ -6 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.3%, 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.
- 1ARES closes the Value gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to BR's edge.
- 2ARES's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
BR leads on balance| Metric | ARES | BR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.8% | 13.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.8% | 45.4% |
| Gross margin | 62.7% | 31.8% |
| Operating margin | 23.2% | 17.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 40.2% |
| Debt to equity | 3.75 | 1.24 |
Performance
ARES leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ARES | BR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -5.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.2% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.8% | 14.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 26.3% | -8.1% |
| Year to date | -19.2% | -24.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -25.9% | -33.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ARES | BR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.8 | 33 |
| ADX (14) | 22.5 | 28.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | 3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.8% | -4.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.9% | 27.3% |
Risk
BR is the more resilient| Metric | ARES | BR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.72 | 0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.53 | -1.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | -2.01 |
| Max drawdown | -47.8% | -46.9% |
| Current drawdown | -29.3% | -34% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.4% | 28.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARES or BR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against ARES's 31. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 BR the better buy right now?
BR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BR over ARES?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BR leads Value by 44 points; BR leads Quality by 23 points; BR leads Risk Resilience by 18 points. BR leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ARES simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, ARES or BR?
Analyst price targets imply +12% upside for ARES and +15.9% for BR, so the Street currently favors BR. 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 BR?
BR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 44 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, ARES or BR?
BR 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 BR?
BR on the Momentum factor, by 11 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 BR?
BR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BR on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 BR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 62.7% vs 31.8%; operating margin 23.2% vs 17.4%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 40.2%. ARES leads on two measures and BR 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 BR's lead over ARES getting stronger or weaker?
BR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 26 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ARES vs BR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ARES closes the Value gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to BR's edge; ARES's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 ARES and BR?
ARES: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. BR: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. 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 BR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ARES and BR 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.