FSK vs TPVG Stock Comparison
TPVG currently leads FSK in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 44. The clearest difference is quality, while FSK has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between FSK and TPVG?
TPVG leads the current stock comparison as TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
FS KKR Capital Corp. vs TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
TPVG leads
TPVG leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support TPVG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
FS KKR Capital Corp.
TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TPVG over FSK, 47 versus 44 as of Oct 21, 2026. TPVG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while FSK holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TPVG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TPVG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. TPVG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare FS KKR Capital Corp. and TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 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 FSK and TPVG 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.
- Risk Resilience60 vs 40FSK +20
- Quality39 vs 52TPVG +13
- Value57 vs 63TPVG +6
- Momentum25 vs 25Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor TPVG. TPVG’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; FSK keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
TPVG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FSK and TPVG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TPVG (TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
FSK (FS KKR Capital Corp.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
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
TPVGTPVG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FSKFSK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TPVGTPVG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FSKFSK on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
TPVGTPVG 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 | FSK | TPVG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.1% | +18.2% | TPVG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TPVG. 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 | 44 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 176.2% vs 8.9%; EPS growth 91.7% vs 73.3%; TTM ROE -6.7% vs 11%; gross margin 60.5% vs 76% |
| Valuation | TPVG | Value 57 vs 63 |
| Technicals | FSK | Price vs 50-day -12.7% vs -15.8%; vs 200-day -11.9% vs -18.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FSK | Risk Resilience 60 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | TPVG | Target upside 15.1% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FSK and TPVG 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 TPVG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TPVG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TPVG +3
- 44 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- TPVG +2
- 45 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- TPVG +4
- 44 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- TPVG +4
- 54 vs 58
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when TPVG moved ahead of FSK.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FSK
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.49%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted
Only TPVG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.14%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, MACD Bearish Crossover.
TPVG 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 -0.49%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.4%, 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.
- 1FSK closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to TPVG's edge.
- 2FSK's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TPVG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 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
Split| Metric | FSK | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 176.2% | 8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 91.7% | 73.3% |
| Gross margin | 60.5% | 76% |
| Operating margin | -0.3% | 65.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -6.7% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 1.23 | 1.26 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FSK | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.3% | -4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.4% | -12.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.7% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.4% | -20% |
| Year to date | -31.6% | -32.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -31.4% | -22.1% |
Technicals
FSK has the stronger structure| Metric | FSK | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.1 | 18 |
| ADX (14) | 33.2 | 20.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.7% | -15.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.9% | -18.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.1% | 23.8% |
Risk
FSK is the more resilient| Metric | FSK | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.12 | -0.68 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.46 | -1.13 |
| Max drawdown | -38.6% | -36.8% |
| Current drawdown | -37.2% | -36.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.7% | 35.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FSK or TPVG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TPVG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 47 against FSK's 44. The edge comes from quality and value. FSK is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 FSK or TPVG the better buy right now?
TPVG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 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 TPVG over FSK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FSK leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; TPVG leads Quality by 13 points; TPVG leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FSK or TPVG?
Analyst price targets imply +15.1% upside for FSK and +18.2% for TPVG, so the Street currently favors TPVG. 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, FSK or TPVG?
TPVG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TPVG 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, FSK or TPVG?
FSK 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, FSK or TPVG?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, FSK or TPVG?
FSK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FSK on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 FSK more profitable than TPVG?
TPVG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.5% vs 76%; operating margin -0.3% vs 65.6%; ttm roe -6.7% vs 11%.
Is TPVG's lead over FSK getting stronger or weaker?
TPVG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 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 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-18, when TPVG moved ahead of FSK.
What would change the FSK vs TPVG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FSK closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to TPVG's edge; FSK's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TPVG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once; 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 FSK and TPVG?
FSK: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TPVG: 1 bullish / 5 bearish, 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 FSK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TPVG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FSK and TPVG 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.