GOOD vs TPVG Stock Comparison
TPVG currently leads GOOD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 41. The clearest difference is quality, while GOOD has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between GOOD and TPVG?
TPVG leads the current stock comparison as TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Gladstone Commercial Corporation vs TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
TPVG leads
TPVG leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TPVG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Gladstone Commercial Corporation
TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TPVG over GOOD, 47 versus 41 as of Oct 21, 2026. TPVG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while GOOD holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TPVG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TPVG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. TPVG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Gladstone Commercial Corporation 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 GOOD 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.
- Quality19 vs 52TPVG +33
- Risk Resilience56 vs 40GOOD +16
- Value66 vs 63Even
- Momentum28 vs 25Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TPVG. TPVG’s edge is concentrated in quality; GOOD 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
TPVG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GOOD 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 quality.
GOOD (Gladstone Commercial Corporation): 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
TPVGTPVG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GOODGOOD 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 | GOOD | TPVG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.8% | +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 | GOOD | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -4.38% | -10.43% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.502 | $1.440 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.200 | $0.830 |
| Years increased | 1 | 2 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | No (2) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
GOOD grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — -4.38% a year against TPVG's -10.43%. They are ranked in different cohorts — REITs and business development companies — 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
3 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 | 41 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | TPVGon balance | revenue growth 5% vs 8.9%; EPS growth 37.5% vs 73.3%; TTM ROE 11.7% vs 11%; gross margin 15.9% vs 76%; operating margin 39.1% vs 65.6% — TPVG takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 66 vs 63 |
| Technicals | GOOD | Price vs 50-day -9% vs -15.8%; vs 200-day -2.6% vs -18.8% |
| Risk Resilience | GOOD | Risk Resilience 56 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | TPVG | Target upside 11.8% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GOOD 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 moderate at 6 points.
- 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 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TPVG +6
- 41 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- GOOD +1
- 48 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- TPVG +3
- 45 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- TPVG +12
- 46 vs 58
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when TPVG 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.
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
1 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted
Only TPVG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.14%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakdown, 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1GOOD closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to TPVG's edge.
- 2GOOD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 | GOOD | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5% | 8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | 73.3% |
| Gross margin | 15.9% | 76% |
| Operating margin | 39.1% | 65.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.7% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 5.46 | 1.26 |
Performance
GOOD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GOOD | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.6% | -4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.1% | -12.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.8% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.6% | -20% |
| Year to date | 12.4% | -32.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.5% | -22.1% |
Technicals
GOOD has the stronger structure| Metric | GOOD | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34 | 18 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 20.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9% | -15.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.6% | -18.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.4% | 23.8% |
Risk
GOOD is the more resilient| Metric | GOOD | TPVG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | -0.68 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.19 | -1.13 |
| Max drawdown | -13.9% | -36.8% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -36.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 23% | 35.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GOOD or TPVG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TPVG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 47 against GOOD's 41. The edge comes from quality. GOOD 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 GOOD or TPVG the better buy right now?
TPVG 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TPVG over GOOD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TPVG leads Quality by 33 points; GOOD leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GOOD or TPVG?
Analyst price targets imply +11.8% upside for GOOD 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, GOOD or TPVG?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 TPVG?
TPVG 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 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, GOOD or TPVG?
GOOD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GOOD 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 GOOD more profitable than TPVG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 15.9% vs 76%; operating margin 39.1% vs 65.6%; ttm roe 11.7% vs 11%. GOOD leads on one measure and TPVG 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 TPVG's lead over GOOD getting stronger or weaker?
TPVG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 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 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when TPVG moved ahead of GOOD.
What would change the GOOD vs TPVG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GOOD closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to TPVG's edge; GOOD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 GOOD and TPVG?
GOOD: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 GOOD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TPVG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GOOD 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.