BUR vs DUHP Stock Comparison
DUHP currently leads BUR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 38. The clearest difference is quality, while BUR has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BUR and DUHP?
DUHP leads the current stock comparison as U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Burford Capital Limited vs U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares
DUHP leads
DUHP leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 24 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support DUHP, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Burford Capital Limited
U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DUHP over BUR, 57 versus 38 as of Oct 31, 2026. DUHP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while BUR holds the stronger value profile. DUHP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DUHP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. DUHP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Burford Capital Limited and U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares 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 BUR and DUHP 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.
- Quality0 vs 58DUHP +58
- Risk Resilience47 vs 85DUHP +38
- Value69 vs 35BUR +34
- Momentum40 vs 66DUHP +26
3 of 4 evidence groups favor DUHP. DUHP’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; BUR keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
DUHP's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BUR and DUHP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DUHP (U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
BUR (Burford Capital Limited): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 63.3% against 8.3%.
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
DUHPDUHP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
BURBUR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
DUHPDUHP on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
DUHPDUHP on Risk Resilience, by 38 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 | BUR | DUHP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +47.1% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | 0% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | — | 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 DUHP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DUHP | 38 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | BUR | Value 69 vs 35 |
| Technicals | DUHP | Price vs 50-day -11.7% vs 0.8%; vs 200-day -37.9% vs 5.8% |
| Risk Resilience | DUHP | Risk Resilience 47 vs 85 |
| 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 BUR and DUHP and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 DUHP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28DUHP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DUHP +19
- 38 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- DUHP +14
- 37 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- DUHP +24
- 35 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- BUR +5
- 60 vs 55
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when DUHP moved ahead of BUR.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BUR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (41.36%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.36%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DUHP
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.66%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.84%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
DUHP 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.58%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.27%, 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.
- 1BUR closes the Quality gap — currently 58 points behind, the largest single contributor to DUHP's edge.
- 2BUR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DUHP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 19-point move would eliminate DUHP's advantage entirely.
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 | BUR | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | — |
| Gross margin | -15.5% | — |
| Operating margin | 107.1% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -77.3% | — |
| Debt to equity | 2.95 | — |
Performance
DUHP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BUR | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 10.8% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.8% | 2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -19.7% | 3.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.3% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | -62.1% | 12.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -68.4% | 12% |
Technicals
DUHP has the stronger structure| Metric | BUR | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.9 | 55.1 |
| ADX (14) | 28 | 7.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.7% | 0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -37.9% | 5.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 63.3% | 8.3% |
Risk
DUHP is the more resilient| Metric | BUR | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.18 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.32 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.3 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -73% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -69.6% | -0.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 70.4% | 11.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.9% | -1.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BUR or DUHP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DUHP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 57 against BUR's 38. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. BUR is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 BUR or DUHP the better buy right now?
DUHP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DUHP over BUR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DUHP leads Quality by 58 points; DUHP leads Risk Resilience by 38 points; BUR leads Value by 34 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BUR or DUHP?
Analyst price targets imply +47.1% upside for BUR and not covered for DUHP. 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, BUR or DUHP?
BUR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BUR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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, BUR or DUHP?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, BUR or DUHP?
DUHP on the Momentum factor, by 26 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, BUR or DUHP?
DUHP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DUHP on Risk Resilience, by 38 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 BUR more profitable than DUHP?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is DUHP's lead over BUR getting stronger or weaker?
DUHP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when DUHP moved ahead of BUR.
What would change the BUR vs DUHP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BUR closes the Quality gap — currently 58 points behind, the largest single contributor to DUHP's edge; BUR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DUHP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 19-point move would eliminate DUHP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BUR and DUHP?
BUR: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DUHP: 4 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 BUR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DUHP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.