BFC vs BGCP Stock Comparison
Compare BFC and BGCP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BFC and BGCP?
BFC leads the current stock comparison as Bank First Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank First Corporation vs BGC Partners, Inc.
BFC leads
BFC leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support BFC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Bank First Corporation
BGC Partners, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BFC over BGCP, 56 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. BFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while BGCP holds the stronger value profile. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BFC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. BFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank First Corporation and BGC Partners, 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 BFC and BGCP 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.
- Quality69 vs 55BFC +14
- Risk Resilience53 vs 41BFC +12
- Value33 vs 39BGCP +6
2 of 4 evidence groups favor BFC. BFC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; BGCP keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 +1
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
BFC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BFC and BGCP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BFC (Bank First Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
BGCP (BGC Partners, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, 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
BFCBFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BFCBFC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BGCPBGCP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BFCBFC on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
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 | BFC | BGCP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +3% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +2.5% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BFC | 56 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 1.7% vs -11.5%; TTM ROE 11.1% vs 19.2%; gross margin 74.1% vs 80%; operating margin 34.5% vs 11.9% |
| Valuation | BGCP | Value 33 vs 39 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | BFC | Risk Resilience 53 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BFC and BGCP and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 BFC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BFC +10
- 56 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- BFC +7
- 53 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- BFC +7
- 53 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- BFC +11
- 57 vs 46
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jun 4 when BFC moved ahead of BGCP.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.59%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.0%)
No active signals
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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.53%, 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.
- 1BGCP closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge.
- 2BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3BFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
Split| Metric | BFC | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.7% | -11.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 24.2% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 74.1% | 80% |
| Operating margin | 34.5% | 11.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.1% | 19.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.13 | 1.6 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BFC | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.9% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.6% | — |
| Year to date | 27.4% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.9% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BFC | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.6 | — |
| ADX (14) | 10.3 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.9% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.9% | — |
Risk
BFC is the more resilient| Metric | BFC | BGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.47 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | — |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | — |
| Max drawdown | -14.2% | — |
| Current drawdown | -2% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BFC or BGCP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against BGCP's 46. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. BGCP 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 BFC or BGCP the better buy right now?
BFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BFC over BGCP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BFC leads Quality by 14 points; BFC leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; BGCP leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BFC or BGCP?
Analyst price targets imply +3% upside for BFC and not covered for BGCP. 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, BFC or BGCP?
BGCP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BGCP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, BFC or BGCP?
BFC 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, BFC or BGCP?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, BFC or BGCP?
BFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BFC on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 BFC more profitable than BGCP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.1% vs 80%; operating margin 34.5% vs 11.9%; ttm roe 11.1% vs 19.2%. BFC leads on one measure and BGCP on two measures, 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 BFC's lead over BGCP getting stronger or weaker?
BFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-04, when BFC moved ahead of BGCP.
What would change the BFC vs BGCP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BGCP closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge; BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; BFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 BFC and BGCP?
BFC: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. BGCP: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on BFC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BFC and BGCP 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.