GBDC vs PSEC Stock Comparison
Compare GBDC and PSEC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GBDC and PSEC?
PSEC leads the current stock comparison as Prospect Capital Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Golub Capital BDC, Inc. vs Prospect Capital Corporation
PSEC leads
PSEC leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from GBDC.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PSEC, and the lead recently changed hands.
Golub Capital BDC, Inc.
Prospect Capital Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PSEC over GBDC, 56 versus 46 as of Sep 6, 2026. PSEC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while GBDC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. PSEC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PSEC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. PSEC lead: Reversed — GBDC led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PSEC now leads by 10.
Compare Golub Capital BDC, Inc. and Prospect Capital Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare GBDC and PSEC 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.
- Value30%51 vs 71PSEC +20
- Quality30%45 vs 58PSEC +13
- Risk Resilience15%57 vs 47GBDC +10
- Momentum25%36 vs 43PSEC +7
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PSEC. PSEC’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; GBDC keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
PSEC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GBDC and PSEC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PSEC (Prospect Capital Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
GBDC (Golub Capital BDC, Inc.): 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
PSECPSEC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
GBDCGBDC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PSECPSEC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
PSECPSEC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
GBDCGBDC on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
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 | GBDC | PSEC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.5% | +12.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +6.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Sell | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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 PSEC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PSEC | 46 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -9.6% vs 4.5%; EPS growth 166.7% vs -266.7%; TTM ROE 3.8% vs 4.1%; gross margin 74.4% vs 79.7%; operating margin 55.5% vs 51% |
| Valuation | PSEC | Value 51 vs 71 |
| Technicals | GBDC | Price vs 50-day 0% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day -0.6% vs -11.3% |
| Risk Resilience | GBDC | Risk Resilience 57 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 11.5% vs 12.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GBDC and PSEC 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 moderate at 10 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 PSEC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5PSEC lead: Reversed — GBDC led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PSEC now leads by 10.
- Today
- PSEC +10
- 46 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- GBDC +6
- 53 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- GBDC +7
- 55 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- GBDC +2
- 45 vs 43
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when PSEC moved ahead of GBDC.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.62%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.04%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
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 +0.23%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.83%, 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.
- 1GBDC closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to PSEC's edge.
- 2GBDC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3PSEC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | GBDC | PSEC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.6% | 4.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 166.7% | -266.7% |
| Gross margin | 74.4% | 79.7% |
| Operating margin | 55.5% | 51% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.8% | 4.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.22 | 0.41 |
Performance
GBDC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GBDC | PSEC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.3% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.3% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.3% | -18.3% |
| Year to date | -4.2% | -13.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11.3% | -22.8% |
Technicals
GBDC has the stronger structure| Metric | GBDC | PSEC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.8 | 52.2 |
| ADX (14) | 8.9 | 16.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.6% | -11.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.6% | 29.5% |
Risk
GBDC is the more resilient| Metric | GBDC | PSEC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | 0.78 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.7 | -0.64 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.98 | -0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -19.2% | -30.8% |
| Current drawdown | -12.2% | -26.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.9% | 36.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GBDC or PSEC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PSEC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 56 against GBDC's 46. The edge comes from value and quality. GBDC 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 GBDC or PSEC the better buy right now?
PSEC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PSEC over GBDC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PSEC leads Value by 20 points; PSEC leads Quality by 13 points; GBDC leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GBDC or PSEC?
Analyst price targets imply +11.5% upside for GBDC and +12.1% for PSEC. 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 PSEC?
PSEC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PSEC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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 PSEC?
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 PSEC?
PSEC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 PSEC?
GBDC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GBDC on Risk Resilience, by 10 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is GBDC more profitable than PSEC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.4% vs 79.7%; operating margin 55.5% vs 51%; ttm roe 3.8% vs 4.1%. Each name leads 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 PSEC's lead over GBDC getting stronger or weaker?
PSEC lead: Reversed — GBDC led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PSEC now leads by 10. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when PSEC moved ahead of GBDC.
What would change the GBDC vs PSEC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GBDC closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to PSEC's edge; GBDC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; PSEC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about GBDC and PSEC?
GBDC: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. PSEC: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on GBDC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On PSEC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GBDC and PSEC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.