GBDC vs TPVG Stock Comparison
TPVG currently leads GBDC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 43. The clearest difference is value, while GBDC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between GBDC and TPVG?
TPVG leads the current stock comparison as TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Golub Capital BDC, Inc. vs TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
TPVG leads
TPVG leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TPVG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Golub Capital BDC, Inc.
TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TPVG over GBDC, 47 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. TPVG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while GBDC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TPVG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TPVG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. TPVG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Golub Capital BDC, Inc. 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 GBDC 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 Resilience56 vs 40GBDC +16
- Value50 vs 63TPVG +13
- Quality45 vs 52TPVG +7
- Momentum25 vs 25Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TPVG. TPVG’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; GBDC keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, 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.
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 — GBDC 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 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
TPVGTPVG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GBDCGBDC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TPVGTPVG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GBDCGBDC on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 | GBDC | TPVG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.9% | +18.2% | TPVG has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | 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 | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.39% | -10.43% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.200 | $1.440 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.560 | $0.830 |
| Years increased | 3 | 2 |
| 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 TPVG's -10.43%.
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
4 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 | TPVG | 43 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | TPVGon balance | revenue growth -9.6% vs 8.9%; EPS growth 166.7% vs 73.3%; TTM ROE 3.8% vs 11%; gross margin 74.4% vs 76%; operating margin 55.5% vs 65.6% — TPVG takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TPVG | Value 50 vs 63 |
| Technicals | GBDC | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs -15.8%; vs 200-day -6.7% vs -18.8% |
| Risk Resilience | GBDC | Risk Resilience 56 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | TPVG | Target upside 16.9% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GBDC 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 4 points. (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 TPVG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TPVG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TPVG +4
- 43 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- TPVG +1
- 46 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- TPVG +2
- 46 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- TPVG +6
- 52 vs 58
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 4 when TPVG 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.
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted
Only TPVG
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, 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 -0.17%, 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.
- 1GBDC closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to TPVG's edge.
- 2GBDC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 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
TPVG leads on balance| Metric | GBDC | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.6% | 8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 166.7% | 73.3% |
| Gross margin | 74.4% | 76% |
| Operating margin | 55.5% | 65.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.8% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 1.22 | 1.26 |
Performance
GBDC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GBDC | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.2% | -12.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.6% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.4% | -20% |
| Year to date | -11.6% | -32.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.3% | -22.1% |
Technicals
GBDC has the stronger structure| Metric | GBDC | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.1 | 18 |
| ADX (14) | 18.8 | 20.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | -15.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.7% | -18.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.3% | 23.8% |
Risk
GBDC is the more resilient| Metric | GBDC | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.53 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.83 | -0.68 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.19 | -1.13 |
| Max drawdown | -16.7% | -36.8% |
| Current drawdown | -16.5% | -36.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.2% | 35.6% |
| 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 TPVG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TPVG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 47 against GBDC's 43. 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 TPVG the better buy right now?
TPVG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TPVG over GBDC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GBDC leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; TPVG leads Value by 13 points; TPVG leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GBDC or TPVG?
Analyst price targets imply +16.9% upside for GBDC 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, GBDC or TPVG?
TPVG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TPVG 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 TPVG?
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 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, GBDC or TPVG?
GBDC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GBDC on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 TPVG?
TPVG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 74.4% vs 76%; operating margin 55.5% vs 65.6%; ttm roe 3.8% vs 11%.
Is TPVG's lead over GBDC getting stronger or weaker?
TPVG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 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 2026-08-04, when TPVG moved ahead of GBDC.
What would change the GBDC vs TPVG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GBDC closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to TPVG's edge; GBDC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; 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 GBDC and TPVG?
GBDC: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, 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 GBDC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TPVG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GBDC 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.