BGCP vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads BGCP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 45. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while BGCP has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between BGCP and JPM?
JPM leads the current stock comparison as JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BGC Partners, Inc. vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from BGCP.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support JPM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
BGC Partners, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over BGCP, 51 versus 45 as of Nov 1, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while BGCP holds the stronger quality profile. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. JPM lead: Reversed — BGCP led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6.
Compare BGC Partners, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 JPM 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 68JPM +27
- Quality55 vs 46BGCP +9
- Value38 vs 44JPM +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; BGCP keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, 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 -6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
JPM's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BGCP and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
BGCP (BGC Partners, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality.
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
JPMJPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BGCPBGCP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +10.7% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor JPM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JPM | 45 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -11.5% vs -7.6%; TTM ROE 19.2% vs 17.9%; gross margin 80% vs 63.2%; operating margin 11.9% vs 28.2% |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 38 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 41 vs 68 |
| 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 JPM 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 6 points.
- 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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30JPM lead: Reversed — BGCP led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6.
- Today
- JPM +6
- 45 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +5
- 45 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- BGCP +2
- 46 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +5
- 46 vs 51
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when JPM moved ahead of BGCP.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.30%)
- 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.9%, AIQ -2 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 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3JPM'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 | BGCP | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -11.5% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 80% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.2% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.6 | 3.32 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BGCP | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | — | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | — | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | -4.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | 7.9% |
| Year to date | — | 4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 10.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BGCP | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | — | 53.1 |
| ADX (14) | — | 14.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | — | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | 4.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 15.3% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | BGCP | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | — | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | — | 0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | — | 0.44 |
| Max drawdown | — | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | — | -7.7% |
| Annualized volatility | — | 22.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | — | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BGCP or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Nov 1, 2026, scoring 51 against BGCP's 45. 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 JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 1, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over BGCP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; BGCP leads Quality by 9 points; JPM leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BGCP or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for BGCP and +10.7% for JPM. 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 JPM?
JPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 JPM?
BGCP 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 JPM?
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 JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 80% vs 63.2%; operating margin 11.9% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 19.2% vs 17.9%. BGCP leads on two measures and JPM 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 JPM's lead over BGCP getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Reversed — BGCP led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JPM now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when JPM moved ahead of BGCP.
What would change the BGCP vs JPM 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 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; JPM'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 JPM?
BGCP: No active signals. JPM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BGCP and JPM 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.