GS vs C Stock Comparison
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. vs Citigroup Inc.
GS leads
GS leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from C.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support GS, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Citigroup Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GS over C, 47 versus 46 as of Sep 2, 2026. GS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while C holds the stronger risk resilience profile. GS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. GS lead: Reversed — C led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GS now leads by 1.
Compare The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Citigroup Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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%43 vs 34GS +9
- Momentum25%47 vs 38GS +9
- Risk Resilience15%54 vs 63C +9
- Value30%48 vs 56C +8
1 of 6 evidence groups favor GS. GS’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; C keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
GS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GS and C both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GS (The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
C (Citigroup Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
GSGS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
GSGS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
GSGS on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
CC on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 | GS | C | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.4% | +11.9% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +37.9% | +21.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GS. 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 | 47 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | GS | revenue growth 123.1% vs -43.9%; EPS growth 19.9% vs 2.9%; ROE 17% vs 8.4%; gross margin 57.3% vs 54.6%; operating margin 24.8% vs 16.1% |
| Valuation | C | Value 48 vs 56 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs -2%; vs 200-day 8.7% vs 7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | C | Risk Resilience 54 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 12.4% vs 11.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GS and C 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 GS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1GS lead: Reversed — C led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GS now leads by 1.
- Today
- GS +1
- 47 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- GS +2
- 49 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- C +7
- 42 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- C +11
- 45 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 28 when C moved ahead of GS.
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 / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.14%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.05%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
C 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 -0.4%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.59%, 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.
- 1C closes the Quality gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to GS's edge.
- 2C's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3GS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
GS leads on balance| Metric | GS | C |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 123.1% | -43.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 19.9% | 2.9% |
| Gross margin | 57.3% | 54.6% |
| Operating margin | 24.8% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity | 17% | 8.4% |
| Debt to equity | 6.04 | 1.9 |
Technicals
Split| Metric | GS | C |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.5 | 39.4 |
| ADX (14) | 8.1 | 16.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.7% | 7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25% | 23.4% |
Risk
C is the more resilient| Metric | GS | C |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.58 | 1.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 1.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.59 | 1.56 |
| Max drawdown | -19.8% | -14.8% |
| Current drawdown | -10.9% | -9.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.6% | 29.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GS or C?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 47 against C's 46. The edge comes from quality and momentum. C 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 GS or C the better buy right now?
GS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GS over C?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. GS leads Quality by 9 points; GS leads Momentum by 9 points; C leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GS or C?
Analyst price targets imply +12.4% upside for GS and +11.9% for C. 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, GS or C?
C is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. C on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, GS or C?
GS 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, GS or C?
GS on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, GS or C?
C is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. C on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 GS more profitable than C?
GS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.3% vs 54.6%; operating margin 24.8% vs 16.1%; roe 17% vs 8.4%.
Is GS's lead over C getting stronger or weaker?
GS lead: Reversed — C led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GS now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-28, when C moved ahead of GS.
What would change the GS vs C verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: C closes the Quality gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to GS's edge; c's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; GS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 GS and C?
GS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. C: 1 bullish / 1 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 GS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On C it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GS and C 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.