BGC vs BOH Stock Comparison
BGC Group, Inc vs Bank of Hawaii Corporation
BGC leads
BGC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BOH on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BGC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
BGC Group, Inc
Bank of Hawaii Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BGC over BOH, 63 versus 57 as of Sep 5, 2026. BGC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while BOH holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BGC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BOH. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BGC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. BGC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BGC Group, Inc and Bank of Hawaii Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BGC and BOH 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.
- Momentum25%78 vs 36BGC +42
- Risk Resilience15%54 vs 81BOH +27
- Quality30%55 vs 72BOH +17
- Value30%63 vs 49BGC +14
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BGC. BGC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; BOH keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
BGC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BGC and BOH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BGC (BGC Group, Inc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
BOH (Bank of Hawaii Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, fundamentals.
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
BGCBGC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
BOHBOH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BGCBGC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
BGCBGC on the Momentum factor, by 42 points.
Lower downside
BOHBOH on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
BOHBOH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BGC, analyst targets favor BOH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BGC | BOH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.5% | +10.1% | BOH has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Strong Buy | Hold | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BGC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BGC | 63 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | BOHon balance | revenue growth -9.4% vs 2.3%; EPS growth -16.7% vs 12.1%; TTM ROE 19.2% vs 12.8%; gross margin 80% vs 69.6%; operating margin 11.9% vs 28.1% — BOH takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BGC | Value 63 vs 49 |
| Technicals | BGC | Price vs 50-day 7.8% vs -3.9%; vs 200-day 18.4% vs 1.6% |
| Risk Resilience | BOH | Risk Resilience 54 vs 81 |
| Analyst expectations | BOH | Target upside -5.5% vs 10.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BGC and BOH 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 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 BGC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4BGC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BGC +6
- 63 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- BGC +7
- 64 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- BOH +11
- 55 vs 66
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when BGC moved ahead of BOH.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.85%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.71%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.16%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.7%, 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.
- 1BOH closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to BGC's edge.
- 2BOH's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3BGC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
BOH leads on balance| Metric | BGC | BOH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.4% | 2.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -16.7% | 12.1% |
| Gross margin | 80% | 69.6% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | 28.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.2% | 12.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.6 | 0.05 |
Performance
BGC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BGC | BOH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.6% | -2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.1% | 0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 30.3% | 2.1% |
| Year to date | 36% | 12.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.3% | 14.3% |
Technicals
BGC has the stronger structure| Metric | BGC | BOH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.6 | 35.3 |
| ADX (14) | 15.3 | 21 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.8% | -3.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.4% | 1.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.9% | 15% |
Risk
BOH is the more resilient| Metric | BGC | BOH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.34 | 0.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | 0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -19.7% | -13.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -10.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.7% | 23.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BGC or BOH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BGC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 63 against BOH's 57. The edge comes from momentum and value. BOH 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 BGC or BOH the better buy right now?
BGC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 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 BGC over BOH?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. BGC leads Momentum by 42 points; BOH leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; BOH leads Quality by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BGC or BOH?
Analyst price targets imply -5.5% upside for BGC and +10.1% for BOH, so the Street currently favors BOH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BGC. 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, BGC or BOH?
BGC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BGC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, BGC or BOH?
BOH 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, BGC or BOH?
BGC on the Momentum factor, by 42 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, BGC or BOH?
BOH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BOH on Risk Resilience, by 27 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BGC more profitable than BOH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 80% vs 69.6%; operating margin 11.9% vs 28.1%; ttm roe 19.2% vs 12.8%. BGC leads on two measures and BOH 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 BGC's lead over BOH getting stronger or weaker?
BGC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when BGC moved ahead of BOH.
What would change the BGC vs BOH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BOH closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to BGC's edge; BOH's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; BGC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about BGC and BOH?
BGC: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. BOH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on BGC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BOH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BGC and BOH with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.