GBDC vs MAIN Stock Comparison
MAIN currently leads GBDC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 43. The clearest difference is quality, while GBDC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between GBDC and MAIN?
MAIN leads the current stock comparison as Main Street Capital Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Golub Capital BDC, Inc. vs Main Street Capital Corporation
MAIN leads
MAIN leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors GBDC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MAIN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Golub Capital BDC, Inc.
Main Street Capital Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MAIN over GBDC, 46 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. MAIN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while GBDC holds the stronger value profile. MAIN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GBDC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAIN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. MAIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Golub Capital BDC, Inc. and Main Street Capital 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 MAIN 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 63MAIN +18
- Value50 vs 37GBDC +13
- Momentum25 vs 29MAIN +4
- Risk Resilience56 vs 60MAIN +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MAIN. MAIN’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; GBDC 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
MAIN's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GBDC and MAIN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MAIN (Main Street Capital Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
GBDC (Golub Capital BDC, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
MAINMAIN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MAINMAIN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GBDCGBDC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
MAINMAIN on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
MAINMAIN on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
GBDCGBDC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MAIN, analyst targets favor GBDC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GBDC | MAIN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.9% | +4.5% | GBDC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +18% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | 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 | GBDC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.39% | 9.99% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.200 | $2.255 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.560 | $3.630 |
| Years increased | 3 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
MAIN grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.99% a year against GBDC's 5.39%.
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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAIN. 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 46 |
| Fundamentals | MAIN | revenue growth -9.6% vs -8.5%; EPS growth 166.7% vs 192.6%; TTM ROE 3.8% vs 14.8%; gross margin 74.4% vs 85.3%; operating margin 55.5% vs 64.7% |
| Valuation | GBDC | Value 50 vs 37 |
| Technicals | MAIN | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day -6.7% vs -4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | MAIN | Risk Resilience 56 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | GBDC | Target upside 16.9% vs 4.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GBDC and MAIN 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 3 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 MAIN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MAIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MAIN +3
- 43 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- MAIN +2
- 46 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- MAIN +3
- 46 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- MAIN +5
- 52 vs 57
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.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MAIN
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.07%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
MAIN 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 -0.11%, 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.
- 1GBDC closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAIN's edge.
- 2GBDC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MAIN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
MAIN leads on balance| Metric | GBDC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.6% | -8.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 166.7% | 192.6% |
| Gross margin | 74.4% | 85.3% |
| Operating margin | 55.5% | 64.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.8% | 14.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.22 | 0.8 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | GBDC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.2% | -4.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.6% | -0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.4% | -1.3% |
| Year to date | -11.6% | -11.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.3% | -6.7% |
Technicals
MAIN has the stronger structure| Metric | GBDC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.1 | 35.1 |
| ADX (14) | 18.8 | 24 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.7% | -4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.3% | 15.4% |
Risk
MAIN is the more resilient| Metric | GBDC | MAIN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.53 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.83 | -0.4 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.19 | -0.58 |
| Max drawdown | -16.7% | -23.2% |
| Current drawdown | -16.5% | -17.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.2% | 24.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GBDC or MAIN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MAIN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 46 against GBDC's 43. The edge comes from quality and momentum. GBDC 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 MAIN the better buy right now?
MAIN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 MAIN over GBDC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MAIN leads Quality by 18 points; GBDC leads Value by 13 points; MAIN leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GBDC or MAIN?
Analyst price targets imply +16.9% upside for GBDC and +4.5% for MAIN, so the Street currently favors GBDC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MAIN. 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, GBDC or MAIN?
GBDC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GBDC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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 MAIN?
MAIN 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 MAIN?
MAIN on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, GBDC or MAIN?
MAIN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAIN on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 GBDC more profitable than MAIN?
MAIN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 74.4% vs 85.3%; operating margin 55.5% vs 64.7%; ttm roe 3.8% vs 14.8%.
Is MAIN's lead over GBDC getting stronger or weaker?
MAIN 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 not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GBDC vs MAIN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GBDC closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAIN's edge; GBDC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MAIN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 MAIN?
GBDC: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. MAIN: 1 bullish / 1 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 MAIN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GBDC and MAIN 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.