BR vs CG Stock Comparison
Compare BR and CG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BR and CG?
BR leads the current stock comparison as Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. vs The Carlyle Group Inc.
BR leads
BR leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors CG on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BR.
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.
The Carlyle Group Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BR over CG, 57 versus 35 as of Sep 11, 2026. BR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. BR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CG. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BR today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. BR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 22 points over 30 sessions. BR leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. and The Carlyle Group Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare BR and CG 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.
- Quality66 vs 36BR +30
- Risk Resilience57 vs 28BR +29
- Value68 vs 46BR +22
- Momentum32 vs 23BR +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BR. BR’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
BR's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BR and CG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BR (Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CG (The Carlyle Group Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 41% against 27.3%.
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
BRBR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CGCG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BRBR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
BRBR on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
BRBR on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
CGCG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BR, analyst targets favor CG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BR | CG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.9% | +33.8% | CG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.4% | +44.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 7 | 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
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 | 57 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | CGon balance | revenue growth 13.7% vs 5.1%; EPS growth 45.4% vs 202.7%; TTM ROE 40.2% vs 6.1%; gross margin 31.8% vs 70.7%; operating margin 17.4% vs 19.1% — CG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BR | Value 68 vs 46 |
| Technicals | BR | Price vs 50-day 3% vs -9.4%; vs 200-day -4.6% vs -15.2% |
| Risk Resilience | BR | Risk Resilience 57 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | CG | Target upside 15.9% vs 33.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BR and CG 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 wide at 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 BR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BR +22
- 57 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- BR +22
- 63 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- BR +21
- 66 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- BR +28
- 66 vs 38
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.18%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.76%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
CG 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.3%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.69%, 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.
- 1CG closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BR's edge.
- 2CG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
CG leads on balance| Metric | BR | CG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.7% | 5.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.4% | 202.7% |
| Gross margin | 31.8% | 70.7% |
| Operating margin | 17.4% | 19.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.2% | 6.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.24 | 1.98 |
Performance
BR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BR | CG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.5% | -8.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -10.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.9% | -2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.1% | -8.5% |
| Year to date | -24.6% | -27.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -33.6% | -31.7% |
Technicals
BR has the stronger structure| Metric | BR | CG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33 | 27.1 |
| ADX (14) | 28.5 | 18.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3% | -9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.6% | -15.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.3% | 41% |
Risk
BR is the more resilient| Metric | BR | CG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.11 | 1.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.41 | -0.95 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.01 | -1.43 |
| Max drawdown | -46.9% | -41.6% |
| Current drawdown | -34% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.7% | 37.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BR or CG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against CG's 35. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 CG the better buy right now?
BR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 CG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BR leads Quality by 30 points; BR leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; BR leads Value by 22 points. BR leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by CG simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, BR or CG?
Analyst price targets imply +15.9% upside for BR and +33.8% for CG, so the Street currently favors CG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BR. 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, BR or CG?
BR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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 CG?
CG 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 CG?
BR on the Momentum factor, by 9 points. 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 CG?
BR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BR on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 CG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 31.8% vs 70.7%; operating margin 17.4% vs 19.1%; ttm roe 40.2% vs 6.1%. BR leads on one measure and CG 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 CG getting stronger or weaker?
BR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 22 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BR vs CG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CG closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BR's edge; CG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CG?
BR: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. CG: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 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 BR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BR and CG 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.