FIG vs GRBK Stock Comparison
GRBK currently leads FIG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 47. The clearest difference is value, while FIG has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FIG and GRBK?
GRBK leads the current stock comparison as Green Brick Partners, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Figma, Inc. vs Green Brick Partners, Inc.
GRBK leads
GRBK leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 5 evidence groups support GRBK, and its lead is narrowing.
Figma, Inc.
Green Brick Partners, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GRBK over FIG, 50 versus 47 as of Oct 22, 2026. GRBK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while FIG holds the stronger momentum profile. GRBK also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 5 covered evidence groups favor GRBK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. GRBK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Figma, Inc. and Green Brick Partners, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare FIG and GRBK 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.
- Value26 vs 57GRBK +31
- Momentum51 vs 30FIG +21
- Quality59 vs 57Even
- Risk Resilience57 vs 58Even
1 of 5 evidence groups favor GRBK. GRBK’s edge is concentrated in value; FIG keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
GRBK's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FIG and GRBK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GRBK (Green Brick Partners, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
FIG (Figma, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 50.8% against 29.1%.
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
GRBKGRBK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FIGFIG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GRBKGRBK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
FIGFIG on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
GRBKGRBK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | FIG | GRBK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +54.6% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 5 covered evidence groups favor GRBK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 47 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 11% vs 6.1%; EPS growth 22.2% vs 22.1%; TTM ROE -108.2% vs 15.4%; gross margin 79.1% vs 31.2%; operating margin -123.8% vs 19.5% |
| Valuation | GRBK | Value 26 vs 57 |
| Technicals | FIG | Price vs 50-day -3.3% vs -10.7%; vs 200-day -3.8% vs -11.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 57 vs 58 |
| 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 FIG and GRBK and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 GRBK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GRBK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GRBK +3
- 47 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- GRBK +1
- 48 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- GRBK +11
- 42 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- GRBK +5
- 49 vs 54
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 22 when GRBK moved ahead of FIG.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only FIG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.67%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.55%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only GRBK
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.64%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 +1.19%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.11%, 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.
- 1FIG closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRBK's edge.
- 2FIG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3GRBK starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate GRBK'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 | FIG | GRBK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11% | 6.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.2% | 22.1% |
| Gross margin | 79.1% | 31.2% |
| Operating margin | -123.8% | 19.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -108.2% | 15.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.16 |
Performance
FIG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FIG | GRBK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.4% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.2% | -9.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.8% | -13.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 21.3% | -12.6% |
| Year to date | -39.2% | -1.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -60.7% | -7.5% |
Technicals
FIG has the stronger structure| Metric | FIG | GRBK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.3 | 36.3 |
| ADX (14) | 14 | 19.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.3% | -10.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.8% | -11.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.8% | 29.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FIG | GRBK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.05 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.91 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.65 | -0.39 |
| Max drawdown | -70.4% | -25.4% |
| Current drawdown | -60% | -23.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.7% | 32.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.9% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FIG or GRBK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GRBK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 50 against FIG's 47. The edge comes from value. FIG is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 FIG or GRBK the better buy right now?
GRBK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GRBK over FIG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GRBK leads Value by 31 points; FIG leads Momentum by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FIG or GRBK?
Analyst price targets imply +27.6% upside for FIG and not covered for GRBK. 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, FIG or GRBK?
GRBK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GRBK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, FIG or GRBK?
FIG 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, FIG or GRBK?
FIG on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, FIG or GRBK?
GRBK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GRBK 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 FIG more profitable than GRBK?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 79.1% vs 31.2%; operating margin -123.8% vs 19.5%; ttm roe -108.2% vs 15.4%. FIG leads on one measure and GRBK 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 GRBK's lead over FIG getting stronger or weaker?
GRBK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-22, when GRBK moved ahead of FIG.
What would change the FIG vs GRBK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FIG closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRBK's edge; FIG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; GRBK starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate GRBK's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FIG and GRBK?
FIG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. GRBK: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on FIG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GRBK it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FIG and GRBK 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.