GOOD vs PSEC Stock Comparison
Compare GOOD and PSEC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GOOD and PSEC?
PSEC leads the current stock comparison as Prospect Capital Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Gladstone Commercial Corporation vs Prospect Capital Corporation
PSEC leads
PSEC leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support PSEC, and its lead is widening.
Gladstone Commercial Corporation
Prospect Capital Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PSEC over GOOD, 56 versus 51 as of Sep 6, 2026. PSEC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while GOOD holds the stronger momentum profile. PSEC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PSEC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. PSEC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Gladstone Commercial Corporation 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 GOOD 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.
- Quality30%19 vs 58PSEC +39
- Momentum25%67 vs 43GOOD +24
- Risk Resilience15%60 vs 47GOOD +13
- Value30%66 vs 71PSEC +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor PSEC. PSEC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; GOOD keeps a meaningful momentum 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 — GOOD and PSEC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PSEC (Prospect Capital Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
GOOD (Gladstone Commercial Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, 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
GOODGOOD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PSECPSEC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
GOODGOOD on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
GOODGOOD on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
PSECPSEC 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 | GOOD | PSEC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.8% | +12.1% | PSEC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Sell | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | 51 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 5% vs 4.5%; EPS growth 37.5% vs -266.7%; TTM ROE 11.7% vs 4.1%; gross margin 15.9% vs 79.7%; operating margin 39.1% vs 51% |
| Valuation | PSEC | Value 66 vs 71 |
| Technicals | GOOD | Price vs 50-day 2.3% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 8.6% vs -11.3% |
| Risk Resilience | GOOD | Risk Resilience 60 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | PSEC | Target upside -0.8% vs 12.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GOOD 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 PSEC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5PSEC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PSEC +5
- 51 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 47 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- PSEC +2
- 46 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- GOOD +3
- 46 vs 43
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when PSEC 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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.10%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.8%)
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
GOOD is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.69%, 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.
- 1GOOD closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to PSEC's edge.
- 2GOOD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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 | GOOD | PSEC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5% | 4.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | -266.7% |
| Gross margin | 15.9% | 79.7% |
| Operating margin | 39.1% | 51% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.7% | 4.1% |
| Debt to equity | 5.46 | 0.41 |
Performance
GOOD leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GOOD | PSEC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.8% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.2% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.8% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.1% | -18.3% |
| Year to date | 22.9% | -13.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.3% | -22.8% |
Technicals
GOOD has the stronger structure| Metric | GOOD | PSEC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.1 | 52.2 |
| ADX (14) | 12.6 | 16.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.3% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.6% | -11.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.7% | 29.5% |
Risk
GOOD is the more resilient| Metric | GOOD | PSEC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.24 | 0.78 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.1 | -0.64 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.16 | -0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -21.7% | -30.8% |
| Current drawdown | -1.1% | -26.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.8% | 36.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GOOD or PSEC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PSEC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 56 against GOOD's 51. The edge comes from quality and value. GOOD is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 GOOD or PSEC the better buy right now?
PSEC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PSEC over GOOD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PSEC leads Quality by 39 points; GOOD leads Momentum by 24 points; GOOD leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GOOD or PSEC?
Analyst price targets imply -0.8% upside for GOOD and +12.1% for PSEC, so the Street currently favors 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, GOOD or PSEC?
PSEC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PSEC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, GOOD or PSEC?
GOOD 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, GOOD or PSEC?
GOOD on the Momentum factor, by 24 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, GOOD or PSEC?
GOOD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GOOD on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 GOOD more profitable than PSEC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 15.9% vs 79.7%; operating margin 39.1% vs 51%; ttm roe 11.7% vs 4.1%. GOOD leads on one measure and PSEC on two measures, 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 GOOD getting stronger or weaker?
PSEC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when PSEC moved ahead of GOOD.
What would change the GOOD vs PSEC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GOOD closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to PSEC's edge; GOOD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 GOOD and PSEC?
GOOD: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PSEC: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. 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 GOOD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PSEC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GOOD 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.