COF vs GS Stock Comparison
COF currently leads GS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 61 vs 50. The clearest difference is quality.
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 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GS on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support COF, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Capital One Financial Corporation
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COF over GS, 61 versus 50 as of Oct 22, 2026. COF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. COF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GS. 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 15 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
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
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 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.
- Quality63 vs 44COF +19
- Momentum59 vs 45COF +14
- Value60 vs 54COF +6
- Risk Resilience62 vs 64Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor COF. COF’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
COF's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
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 momentum.
GS (The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.): 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
COFCOF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
COFCOF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
COFCOF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
COFCOF on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
GSGS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GSGS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors COF, analyst targets favor GS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | COF | GS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.8% | +23.2% | GS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.9% | +38.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 8 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | COF | GS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 21.06% | 22.87% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.000 | $5.000 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.600 | $14.000 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #8 |
GS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 22.87% a year against COF's 21.06%. 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 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 50 |
| Fundamentals | COFon balance | revenue growth 2.8% vs -1.9%; EPS growth 41.6% vs -18.9%; TTM ROE 9.3% vs 17.9%; gross margin 66.2% vs 57.5%; operating margin 21% vs 25% — COF takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | COF | Value 60 vs 54 |
| Technicals | COF | Price vs 50-day -0.3% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day -0.6% vs -7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | GS | Target upside 18.8% vs 23.2% |
✓ 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 moderate at 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 COF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20COF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COF +11
- 61 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- COF +13
- 57 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- COF +15
- 52 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- COF +17
- 65 vs 48
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.
COF and GS carry the same 2 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.53%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.25%, AIQ +3 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 19 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 Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-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
COF leads on balance| Metric | COF | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.8% | -1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 41.6% | -18.9% |
| Gross margin | 66.2% | 57.5% |
| Operating margin | 21% | 25% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.3% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.4 | 6.71 |
Performance
COF leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | COF | GS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.8% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | -6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.1% | -19.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.5% | -4.5% |
| Year to date | -16.8% | 0.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.8% | 16.7% |
Technicals
COF has the stronger structure| Metric | COF | GS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.2 | 42.5 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 32.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.6% | -7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.4% | 17.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | COF | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.27 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.12 | 0.55 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.15 | 0.85 |
| Max drawdown | -31.7% | -24% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -23.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.2% | 32% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -3.1% |
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 Oct 22, 2026, scoring 61 against GS's 50. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 Oct 22, 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, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. COF leads Quality by 19 points; COF leads Momentum by 14 points; COF leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, COF or GS?
Analyst price targets imply +18.8% upside for COF and +23.2% for GS, so the Street currently favors GS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors COF. 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, 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 6 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?
COF 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 14 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, COF or GS?
GS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in 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 57.5%; operating margin 21% vs 25%; ttm roe 9.3% vs 17.9%. 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 15 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
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 19 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 Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate COF's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about COF and GS?
COF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. GS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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
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.