COF vs GS Stock Comparison
Compare COF and GS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between COF and GS?
COF leads the current stock comparison as Capital One Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital One Financial Corporation vs The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
COF leads
COF leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support COF, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Capital One Financial Corporation
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COF over GS, 61 versus 47 as of Sep 6, 2026. COF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. COF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor COF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. COF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 14 points over 30 sessions. COF 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 Capital One Financial Corporation and The Goldman Sachs 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 COF and GS 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.
- Quality30%63 vs 43COF +20
- Value30%61 vs 47COF +14
- Momentum25%58 vs 46COF +12
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 54COF +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor COF. COF’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
COF's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COF and GS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
COF (Capital One Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
GS (The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals.
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
COFCOF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
GSGS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
COFCOF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
COFCOF on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
COFCOF on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
COFCOF 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 | COF | GS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.1% | +8.1% | COF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.4% | +37.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor COF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | COF | 61 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | GSon balance | revenue growth 2.8% vs 123.1%; EPS growth 41.6% vs 19.9%; TTM ROE 9.3% vs 17%; gross margin 66.2% vs 57.3%; operating margin 21% vs 24.8% — GS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | COF | Value 61 vs 47 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 3.7% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day 5.8% vs 9.5% |
| Risk Resilience | COF | Risk Resilience 61 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | COF | Target upside 15.1% vs 8.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of COF and GS 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 14 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 COF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5COF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COF +14
- 61 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- COF +13
- 60 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- COF +21
- 67 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- COF +20
- 65 vs 45
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jun 9 when COF moved ahead of GS.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.04%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.09%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
COF 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 -0.41%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.07%, 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.
- 1GS closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to COF's edge.
- 2GS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3COF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate COF'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
GS leads on balance| Metric | COF | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.8% | 123.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 41.6% | 19.9% |
| Gross margin | 66.2% | 57.3% |
| Operating margin | 21% | 24.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.3% | 17% |
| Debt to equity | 0.4 | 6.04 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | COF | GS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.8% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.8% | -0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 21.5% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17% | 26.4% |
| Year to date | -9.4% | 18.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.8% | 42.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | COF | GS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.2 | 46.9 |
| ADX (14) | 11.8 | 9.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.7% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.8% | 9.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.6% | 25.5% |
Risk
COF is the more resilient| Metric | COF | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.31 | 1.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.05 | 1.07 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.07 | 1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -31.7% | -19.8% |
| Current drawdown | -14.9% | -9.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.2% | 31.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, COF or GS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, COF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 61 against GS's 47. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 COF or GS the better buy right now?
COF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 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 COF over GS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. COF leads Quality by 20 points; COF leads Value by 14 points; COF leads Momentum by 12 points. COF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by GS 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, COF or GS?
Analyst price targets imply +15.1% upside for COF and +8.1% for GS, so the Street currently favors COF. 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, COF or GS?
COF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. COF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, COF or GS?
GS 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, COF or GS?
COF on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, COF or GS?
COF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COF on Risk Resilience, by 7 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is COF more profitable than GS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 66.2% vs 57.3%; operating margin 21% vs 24.8%; ttm roe 9.3% vs 17%. COF leads on one measure and GS 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 COF's lead over GS getting stronger or weaker?
COF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-09, when COF moved ahead of GS.
What would change the COF vs GS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GS closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to COF's edge; GS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; COF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate COF's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about COF and GS?
COF: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. GS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 COF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare COF and GS 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.