GBDC vs GOOD Stock Comparison
GBDC currently leads GOOD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 43 vs 41. The clearest difference is quality, while GOOD has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between GBDC and GOOD?
GBDC leads the current stock comparison as Golub Capital BDC, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Golub Capital BDC, Inc. vs Gladstone Commercial Corporation
GBDC leads
GBDC leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support GBDC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Golub Capital BDC, Inc.
Gladstone Commercial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GBDC over GOOD, 43 versus 41 as of Oct 21, 2026. GBDC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while GOOD holds the stronger value profile. GBDC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GBDC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. GBDC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Golub Capital BDC, Inc. and Gladstone Commercial Corporation 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 GBDC and GOOD 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.
- Quality45 vs 19GBDC +26
- Value50 vs 66GOOD +16
- Momentum25 vs 28Even
- Risk Resilience56 vs 56Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor GBDC. GBDC’s edge is concentrated in quality; GOOD keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
GBDC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GBDC and GOOD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GBDC (Golub Capital BDC, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
GOOD (Gladstone Commercial Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 22.4% against 15.3%.
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
GBDCGBDC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GBDCGBDC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GOODGOOD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GBDCGBDC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GBDCGBDC 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 | GBDC | GOOD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.9% | +11.8% | GBDC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GBDC | GOOD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.39% | -4.38% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.200 | $1.502 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.560 | $1.200 |
| Years increased | 3 | 1 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (2) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
GBDC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 5.39% a year against GOOD's -4.38%. They are ranked in different cohorts — business development companies and REITs — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GBDC. 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 | 43 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | GBDCon balance | revenue growth -9.6% vs 5%; EPS growth 166.7% vs 37.5%; TTM ROE 3.8% vs 11.7%; gross margin 74.4% vs 15.9%; operating margin 55.5% vs 39.1% — GBDC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GOOD | Value 50 vs 66 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs -9%; vs 200-day -6.7% vs -2.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 56 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | GBDC | Target upside 16.9% vs 11.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GBDC and GOOD 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 2 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)
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 GBDC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GBDC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GBDC +2
- 43 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- GOOD +2
- 46 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- GBDC +1
- 46 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- GBDC +6
- 52 vs 46
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when GBDC moved ahead of GOOD.
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 / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only GBDC
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.49%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GOOD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.41%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
GBDC 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 -0.17%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3%, 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.
- 1GOOD closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to GBDC's edge.
- 2GOOD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3GBDC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
GBDC leads on balance| Metric | GBDC | GOOD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.6% | 5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 166.7% | 37.5% |
| Gross margin | 74.4% | 15.9% |
| Operating margin | 55.5% | 39.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.8% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.22 | 5.46 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | GBDC | GOOD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -6.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.2% | -6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.6% | -7.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.4% | -4.6% |
| Year to date | -11.6% | 12.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.3% | 4.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | GBDC | GOOD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.1 | 34 |
| ADX (14) | 18.8 | 13.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | -9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.7% | -2.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.3% | 22.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GBDC | GOOD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.53 | 0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.83 | 0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.19 | 0.19 |
| Max drawdown | -16.7% | -13.9% |
| Current drawdown | -16.5% | -9.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.2% | 23% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GBDC or GOOD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GBDC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 43 against GOOD's 41. The edge comes from quality. GOOD 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 GBDC or GOOD the better buy right now?
GBDC 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GBDC over GOOD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GBDC leads Quality by 26 points; GOOD leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GBDC or GOOD?
Analyst price targets imply +16.9% upside for GBDC and +11.8% for GOOD, so the Street currently favors GBDC. 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, GBDC or GOOD?
GOOD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GOOD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, GBDC or GOOD?
GBDC 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, GBDC or GOOD?
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, GBDC or GOOD?
GBDC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GBDC 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 GBDC more profitable than GOOD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.4% vs 15.9%; operating margin 55.5% vs 39.1%; ttm roe 3.8% vs 11.7%. GBDC leads on two measures and GOOD on one measure, 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 GBDC's lead over GOOD getting stronger or weaker?
GBDC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when GBDC moved ahead of GOOD.
What would change the GBDC vs GOOD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GOOD closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to GBDC's edge; GOOD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; GBDC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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 GBDC and GOOD?
GBDC: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. GOOD: 2 bullish / 2 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 GBDC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GOOD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GBDC and GOOD 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.