BGCP vs BUR Stock Comparison
BGCP currently leads BUR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 45 vs 38. The clearest difference is quality, while BUR has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BGCP and BUR?
BGCP leads the current stock comparison as BGC Partners, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BGC Partners, Inc. vs Burford Capital Limited
BGCP leads
BGCP leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support BGCP, and its lead is narrowing.
BGC Partners, Inc.
Burford Capital Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BGCP over BUR, 45 versus 38 as of Nov 1, 2026. BGCP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while BUR holds the stronger value profile. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BGCP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. BGCP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BGC Partners, Inc. 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 BGCP 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.
- Quality55 vs 0BGCP +55
- Value38 vs 69BUR +31
- Risk Resilience41 vs 47BUR +6
2 of 4 evidence groups favor BGCP. BGCP’s edge is concentrated in quality; BUR keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
BGCP's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BGCP and BUR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BGCP (BGC Partners, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
BUR (Burford Capital Limited): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, 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
BGCPBGCP 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 31 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BURBUR on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 | BGCP | BUR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +47.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 2 | 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 BGCP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BGCP | 45 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | BGCPon balance | EPS growth 0% vs 0%; TTM ROE 19.2% vs -77.3%; gross margin 80% vs -15.5%; operating margin 11.9% vs 107.1% — BGCP takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BUR | Value 38 vs 69 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | BUR | Risk Resilience 41 vs 47 |
| 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 BGCP and BUR 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 BGCP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30BGCP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BGCP +7
- 45 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- BGCP +8
- 45 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- BGCP +10
- 46 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- BUR +15
- 46 vs 61
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when BGCP 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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BUR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (41.00%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.13%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.58%, 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.
- 1BUR closes the Quality gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to BGCP's edge.
- 2BUR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BGCP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate BGCP's advantage entirely.
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
BGCP leads on balance| Metric | BGCP | BUR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -11.5% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 80% | -15.5% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | 107.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.2% | -77.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.6 | 2.95 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BGCP | BUR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | — | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | — | -6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | -20% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | -34.6% |
| Year to date | — | -61.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | -66.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BGCP | BUR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | — | 47.1 |
| ADX (14) | — | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | — | -10.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | -36.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 63.1% |
Risk
BUR is the more resilient| Metric | BGCP | BUR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | — | 2.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | — | -1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | — | -1.08 |
| Max drawdown | — | -69.8% |
| Current drawdown | — | -65.8% |
| Annualized volatility | — | 69.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | — | -5.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BGCP or BUR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BGCP is the stronger of the two as of Nov 1, 2026, scoring 45 against BUR's 38. The edge comes from quality. 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 BGCP or BUR the better buy right now?
BGCP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 1, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BGCP over BUR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BGCP leads Quality by 55 points; BUR leads Value by 31 points; BUR leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BGCP or BUR?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for BGCP and +47.1% for BUR. 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, BGCP or BUR?
BUR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BUR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, BGCP 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, BGCP or BUR?
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, BGCP or BUR?
BUR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BUR on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 BGCP more profitable than BUR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 80% vs -15.5%; operating margin 11.9% vs 107.1%; ttm roe 19.2% vs -77.3%. BGCP 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 BGCP's lead over BUR getting stronger or weaker?
BGCP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when BGCP moved ahead of BUR.
What would change the BGCP 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 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to BGCP's edge; BUR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BGCP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate BGCP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BGCP and BUR?
BGCP: No active signals. 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. On BUR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BGCP 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.