BFC vs DUHP Stock Comparison
Compare BFC and DUHP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BFC and DUHP?
BFC leads the current stock comparison as Bank First Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank First Corporation vs Dimensional - US High Profitability ETF
BFC leads
BFC leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from DUHP.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support BFC, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Bank First Corporation
Dimensional - US High Profitability ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BFC over DUHP, 56 versus 51 as of Sep 11, 2026. BFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while DUHP holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BFC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BFC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. BFC lead: Reversed — DUHP led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BFC now leads by 5.
Compare Bank First Corporation and Dimensional - US High Profitability ETF 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 DUHP 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.
- Risk Resilience53 vs 86DUHP +33
- Momentum68 vs 39BFC +29
- Quality69 vs 58BFC +11
- Value33 vs 35Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor BFC. BFC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; DUHP keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
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 DUHP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BFC (Bank First Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
DUHP (Dimensional - US High Profitability ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
BFCBFC on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
DUHPDUHP on Risk Resilience, by 33 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 | DUHP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +3% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +2.5% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 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 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 33 vs 35 |
| Technicals | BFC | Price vs 50-day 1.6% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 9.9% vs 4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | DUHP | Risk Resilience 53 vs 86 |
| 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 DUHP 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 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 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: Reversed — DUHP led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BFC now leads by 5.
- Today
- BFC +5
- 56 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- DUHP +3
- 53 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- DUHP +7
- 53 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- BFC +2
- 57 vs 55
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when BFC moved ahead of DUHP.
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%)
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.69%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
DUHP 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.53%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.67%, 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.
- 1DUHP closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge.
- 2DUHP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.7% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 24.2% | — |
| Gross margin | 74.1% | — |
| Operating margin | 34.5% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.1% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.13 | — |
Performance
BFC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BFC | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | -2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.9% | 3.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.6% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | 27.4% | 9.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.9% | 12.8% |
Technicals
BFC has the stronger structure| Metric | BFC | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.6 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 10.3 | 13.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.9% | 4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.9% | 8.9% |
Risk
DUHP is the more resilient| Metric | BFC | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.47 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | 1.11 |
| Max drawdown | -14.2% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 12% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -1.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BFC or DUHP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against DUHP's 51. The edge comes from momentum and quality. DUHP is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 DUHP the better buy right now?
BFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BFC over DUHP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DUHP leads Risk Resilience by 33 points; BFC leads Momentum by 29 points; BFC leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BFC or DUHP?
Analyst price targets imply +3% upside for BFC and not covered for DUHP. 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 DUHP?
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, BFC or DUHP?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 DUHP?
BFC on the Momentum factor, by 29 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 DUHP?
DUHP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DUHP on Risk Resilience, by 33 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 DUHP?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is BFC's lead over DUHP getting stronger or weaker?
BFC lead: Reversed — DUHP led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BFC now leads by 5. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when BFC moved ahead of DUHP.
What would change the BFC vs DUHP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DUHP closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to BFC's edge; DUHP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 DUHP?
BFC: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. DUHP: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 3 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 DUHP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.