BR vs CBOE Stock Comparison
BR currently leads CBOE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 69 vs 58. The clearest difference is value, while CBOE has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between BR and CBOE?
BR leads the current stock comparison as Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. vs Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
BR leads
BR leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BR, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.
Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BR over CBOE, 69 versus 58 as of Oct 31, 2026. BR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while CBOE holds the stronger quality profile. BR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BR today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. BR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. and Cboe Global Markets, Inc. 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 BR and CBOE 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.
- Value68 vs 26BR +42
- Risk Resilience59 vs 49BR +10
- Quality66 vs 75CBOE +9
- Momentum79 vs 80Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BR. BR’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; CBOE 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; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
BR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BR and CBOE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BR (Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
CBOE (Cboe Global Markets, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 38.4% against 29.5%.
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
BRBR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BRBR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BRBR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 42 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BRBR on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
BRBR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BR | CBOE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.7% | -0.5% | BR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.4% | +57.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BR | CBOE |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.72% | 11.60% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.230 | $1.560 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.710 | $2.700 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #85 | #67 |
CBOE grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 11.60% a year against BR's 10.72%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BR | 69 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 13.7% vs 13.4%; EPS growth 45.4% vs -8.4%; TTM ROE 40.2% vs 25.7%; gross margin 31.8% vs 52.3%; operating margin 17.4% vs 35.2% |
| Valuation | BR | Value 68 vs 26 |
| Technicals | CBOE | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs 14.5%; vs 200-day 6.4% vs 9.8% |
| Risk Resilience | BR | Risk Resilience 59 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | BR | Target upside 8.7% vs -0.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BR and CBOE and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- 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 BR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30BR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BR +11
- 69 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- BR +10
- 71 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 60 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- BR +9
- 68 vs 59
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
3 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only CBOE
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 +0.38%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +6.77%, 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.
- 1CBOE closes the Value gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to BR's edge.
- 2CBOE's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3BR'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 | BR | CBOE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.7% | 13.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.4% | -8.4% |
| Gross margin | 31.8% | 52.3% |
| Operating margin | 17.4% | 35.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.2% | 25.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.24 | 0.28 |
Performance
CBOE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BR | CBOE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.9% | 16.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.3% | 8.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.1% | 4.8% |
| Year to date | -20.7% | 27.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -23.8% | 34.2% |
Technicals
CBOE has the stronger structure| Metric | BR | CBOE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.4 | 62.3 |
| ADX (14) | 31.2 | 32 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | 14.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.4% | 9.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.5% | 38.4% |
Risk
BR is the more resilient| Metric | BR | CBOE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.04 | -0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.85 | 0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.26 | 1.21 |
| Max drawdown | -41.6% | -36.9% |
| Current drawdown | -23.7% | -12.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 30% | 35.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BR or CBOE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 69 against CBOE's 58. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. CBOE 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 BR or CBOE the better buy right now?
BR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BR over CBOE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BR leads Value by 42 points; BR leads Risk Resilience by 10 points; CBOE leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BR or CBOE?
Analyst price targets imply +8.7% upside for BR and -0.5% for CBOE, so the Street currently favors BR. 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, BR or CBOE?
BR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 42 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, BR or CBOE?
BR 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, BR or CBOE?
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, BR or CBOE?
BR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BR on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 BR more profitable than CBOE?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 31.8% vs 52.3%; operating margin 17.4% vs 35.2%; ttm roe 40.2% vs 25.7%. BR leads on one measure and CBOE 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 BR's lead over CBOE getting stronger or weaker?
BR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BR vs CBOE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CBOE closes the Value gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to BR's edge; CBOE's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; BR'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 BR and CBOE?
BR: 3 bullish / 0 bearish. CBOE: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on BR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CBOE it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BR and CBOE 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.