BOKF vs CATY Stock Comparison
BOK Financial Corporation vs Cathay General Bancorp
CATY leads
CATY leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BOKF on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CATY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
BOK Financial Corporation
Cathay General Bancorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CATY over BOKF, 58 versus 51 as of Sep 5, 2026. CATY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. CATY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BOKF. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CATY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CATY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BOK Financial Corporation and Cathay General Bancorp across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BOKF and CATY 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%30 vs 50CATY +20
- Quality30%58 vs 67CATY +9
- Value30%54 vs 52Even
- Risk Resilience15%65 vs 66Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CATY. CATY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CATY's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BOKF and CATY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CATY (Cathay General Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BOKF (BOK Financial Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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
CATYCATY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
BOKFBOKF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CATYCATY on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
CATYCATY carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
BOKFBOKF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CATY, analyst targets favor BOKF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BOKF | CATY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.5% | -8.7% | BOKF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +11.5% | +33.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 3 | 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 CATY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CATY | 51 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | CATYon balance | revenue growth 6% vs 6.9%; EPS growth 14% vs 6.2%; TTM ROE 10.8% vs 11.7%; gross margin 66.1% vs 57.2%; operating margin 23.4% vs 33.2% — CATY takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 54 vs 52 |
| Technicals | CATY | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day 4.6% vs 13.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 65 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | BOKF | Target upside 8.5% vs -8.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BOKF and CATY 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 CATY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4CATY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CATY +7
- 51 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- CATY +4
- 50 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- CATY +3
- 61 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- CATY +2
- 62 vs 64
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when BOKF moved ahead of CATY.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.63%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.68%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CATY leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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 -0.47%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.18%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1BOKF closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to CATY's edge.
- 2BOKF's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CATY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
CATY leads on balance| Metric | BOKF | CATY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6% | 6.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14% | 6.2% |
| Gross margin | 66.1% | 57.2% |
| Operating margin | 23.4% | 33.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.8% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.82 | 0.05 |
Performance
CATY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BOKF | CATY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.9% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.8% | 7.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.9% | 29.3% |
| Year to date | 15.4% | 29.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22% | 25.8% |
Technicals
CATY has the stronger structure| Metric | BOKF | CATY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.6 | 36.1 |
| ADX (14) | 26.1 | 23.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.6% | 13.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.1% | 15.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BOKF | CATY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 0.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.8 | 0.87 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.08 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -10.7% | -13% |
| Current drawdown | -6.4% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.2% | 23.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BOKF or CATY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CATY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against BOKF's 51. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 BOKF or CATY the better buy right now?
CATY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CATY over BOKF?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CATY leads Momentum by 20 points; CATY leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BOKF or CATY?
Analyst price targets imply +8.5% upside for BOKF and -8.7% for CATY, so the Street currently favors BOKF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CATY. 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, BOKF or CATY?
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, BOKF or CATY?
BOKF 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, BOKF or CATY?
CATY on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, BOKF or CATY?
CATY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CATY carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BOKF more profitable than CATY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 66.1% vs 57.2%; operating margin 23.4% vs 33.2%; ttm roe 10.8% vs 11.7%. BOKF leads on one measure and CATY on two measures, 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 CATY's lead over BOKF getting stronger or weaker?
CATY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when BOKF moved ahead of CATY.
What would change the BOKF vs CATY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BOKF closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to CATY's edge; BOKF's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CATY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 BOKF and CATY?
BOKF: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CATY: 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 BOKF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CATY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BOKF and CATY 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.