BFC vs BUR Stock Comparison
BFC currently leads BUR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 38. The clearest difference is quality, while BUR has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BFC and BUR?
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 Burford Capital Limited
BFC leads
BFC leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors BUR on target upside.
Stable: 2 of 6 evidence groups support BFC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Bank First Corporation
Burford Capital Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BFC over BUR, 50 versus 38 as of Oct 31, 2026. BFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while BUR holds the stronger value profile. BFC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BUR. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BFC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. BFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank First Corporation and Burford Capital Limited 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 BFC and BUR 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.
- Quality70 vs 0BFC +70
- Value33 vs 69BUR +36
- Momentum49 vs 40BFC +9
- Risk Resilience48 vs 47Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor BFC. BFC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; BUR keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
BFC's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BFC and BUR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BFC (Bank First Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BUR (Burford Capital Limited): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 63.3% against 24.4%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
BURBUR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BURBUR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 points.
Momentum
BFCBFC on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
BFCBFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
BURBUR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BFC, analyst targets favor BUR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BFC | BUR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8% | +47.1% | BUR has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 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 | 50 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 0.4% vs 0%; EPS growth -2.7% vs 0%; TTM ROE 11.2% vs -77.3%; gross margin 75.1% vs -15.5%; operating margin 34.1% vs 107.1% |
| Valuation | BUR | Value 33 vs 69 |
| Technicals | BFC | Price vs 50-day -1% vs -11.7%; vs 200-day 2.1% vs -37.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 48 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | BUR | Target upside 8% vs 47.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BFC and BUR 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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'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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BFC +12
- 50 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- BFC +11
- 48 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- BFC +13
- 48 vs 35
- 90 sessions ago
- BUR +8
- 52 vs 60
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when BFC moved ahead of BUR.
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 / 0 bearish
Only BFC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.86%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BUR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (41.36%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.36%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
BUR 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.06%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.58%, 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.
- 1BUR closes the Quality gap — currently 70 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge.
- 2BUR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 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 | BUR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.4% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -2.7% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 75.1% | -15.5% |
| Operating margin | 34.1% | 107.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.2% | -77.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.1 | 2.95 |
Performance
BFC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BFC | BUR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.1% | 10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -13.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.3% | -19.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.1% | -30.3% |
| Year to date | 21.4% | -62.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.5% | -68.4% |
Technicals
BFC has the stronger structure| Metric | BFC | BUR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.8 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 28.2 | 28 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | -11.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.1% | -37.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.4% | 63.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BFC | BUR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.4 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.48 | -1.32 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.76 | -1.3 |
| Max drawdown | -14.2% | -73% |
| Current drawdown | -6.7% | -69.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.7% | 70.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -5.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BFC or BUR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BFC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 50 against BUR's 38. The edge comes from quality and momentum. BUR 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 BUR the better buy right now?
BFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 2 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 BFC over BUR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BFC leads Quality by 70 points; BUR leads Value by 36 points; BFC leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BFC or BUR?
Analyst price targets imply +8% upside for BFC and +47.1% for BUR, so the Street currently favors BUR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BFC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BFC or BUR?
BUR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BUR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 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 BUR?
BUR 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 BUR?
BFC on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, BFC or BUR?
BFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 BUR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 75.1% vs -15.5%; operating margin 34.1% vs 107.1%; ttm roe 11.2% vs -77.3%. BFC leads on two measures and BUR 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 BFC's lead over BUR getting stronger or weaker?
BFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when BFC moved ahead of BUR.
What would change the BFC vs BUR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BUR closes the Quality gap — currently 70 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge; BUR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; 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 BUR?
BFC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. BUR: 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 BFC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BUR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BFC and BUR 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.