BGCP vs FLG Stock Comparison
Compare BGCP and FLG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BGCP and FLG?
FLG leads the current stock comparison as Flagstar Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BGC Partners, Inc. vs Flagstar Financial, Inc.
FLG leads
FLG leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support FLG, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
BGC Partners, Inc.
Flagstar Financial, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FLG over BGCP, 48 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. FLG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while BGCP holds the stronger quality profile. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FLG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. FLG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BGC Partners, Inc. and Flagstar Financial, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BGCP and FLG 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 Resilience41 vs 77FLG +36
- Quality55 vs 31BGCP +24
- Value39 vs 62FLG +23
2 of 4 evidence groups favor FLG. FLG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; BGCP keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
FLG's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BGCP and FLG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FLG (Flagstar Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
BGCP (BGC Partners, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals.
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
FLGFLG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FLGFLG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FLGFLG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FLGFLG on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 | FLG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +30% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +8.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 6 | 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 FLG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 46 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | BGCPon balance | revenue growth -11.5% vs 1.3%; gross margin 80% vs 45%; operating margin 11.9% vs 1.9% — BGCP takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FLG | Value 39 vs 62 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | FLG | Risk Resilience 41 vs 77 |
| 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 FLG 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 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 FLG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10FLG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FLG +2
- 46 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- FLG +1
- 46 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- FLG +1
- 46 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- FLG +7
- 46 vs 53
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when BGCP moved ahead of FLG.
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
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.63%)
- 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.68%, 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.
- 1BGCP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLG's edge.
- 2BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3FLG'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
BGCP leads on balance| Metric | BGCP | FLG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -11.5% | 1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | 100% |
| Gross margin | 80% | 45% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | 1.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.2% | 0.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.6 | 1.34 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BGCP | FLG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | — | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | — | -6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | -8.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | 7.2% |
| Year to date | — | 5.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BGCP | FLG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | — | 42.9 |
| ADX (14) | — | 23.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | — | -6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | -2.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 19.1% |
Risk
FLG is the more resilient| Metric | BGCP | FLG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | — | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | — | 0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | — | 0.28 |
| Max drawdown | — | -16% |
| Current drawdown | — | -13.6% |
| Annualized volatility | — | 29.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | — | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BGCP or FLG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FLG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against BGCP's 46. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. BGCP is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 FLG the better buy right now?
FLG 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FLG over BGCP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FLG leads Risk Resilience by 36 points; BGCP leads Quality by 24 points; FLG leads Value by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BGCP or FLG?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for BGCP and +30% for FLG. 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 FLG?
FLG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FLG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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 FLG?
FLG 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 FLG?
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 FLG?
FLG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FLG on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 FLG?
BGCP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 80% vs 45%; operating margin 11.9% vs 1.9%; ttm roe 19.2% vs 0.6%.
Is FLG's lead over BGCP getting stronger or weaker?
FLG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when BGCP moved ahead of FLG.
What would change the BGCP vs FLG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BGCP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLG's edge; BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; FLG'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 BGCP and FLG?
BGCP: No active signals. FLG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. On FLG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BGCP and FLG 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.