BFC vs QQQ Stock Comparison
Compare BFC and QQQ across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BFC and QQQ?
BFC and QQQ are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank First Corporation vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
BFC and QQQ are effectively level
BFC and QQQ are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Bank First Corporation
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate BFC and QQQ as of Sep 11, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Bank First Corporation and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 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 QQQ 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.
- Momentum68 vs 45BFC +23
- Risk Resilience53 vs 75QQQ +22
- Quality69 vs 83QQQ +14
- Value33 vs 30Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
No new signals fired.
QQQ's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BFC and QQQ 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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
BFCBFC on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 | QQQ | 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 33 vs 30 |
| Technicals | BFC | Price vs 50-day 1.6% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 9.9% vs 7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 53 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +6
- 53 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +11
- 53 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- BFC +7
- 57 vs 50
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 4 when QQQ moved ahead of BFC.
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%)
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.75%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.27%)
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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.87%, AIQ -5 points).
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 | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BFC | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.9% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.6% | 16.6% |
| Year to date | 27.4% | 15.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.9% | 22.4% |
Technicals
BFC has the stronger structure| Metric | BFC | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.6 | 48.1 |
| ADX (14) | 10.3 | 9.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.9% | 7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.9% | 13% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | BFC | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.47 | 1.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 0.92 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -14.2% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2% | -5% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, BFC or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply +3% upside for BFC and not covered for QQQ. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BFC or QQQ?
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 QQQ?
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 QQQ?
BFC on the Momentum factor, by 23 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 QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What do the current signals say about BFC and QQQ?
BFC: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 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 QQQ 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.