GS vs C Stock Comparison
GS currently leads C in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 43. The clearest difference is momentum, while C has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between GS and C?
GS leads the current stock comparison as The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. vs Citigroup Inc.
GS leads
GS leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from C.
Fragile: 4 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, 50 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. GS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while C holds the stronger value profile. GS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. GS lead: Reversed — C led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GS now leads by 7.
Compare The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Citigroup Inc. 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 GS and C 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.
- Momentum45 vs 29GS +16
- Quality44 vs 33GS +11
- Risk Resilience64 vs 57GS +7
- Value54 vs 59C +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GS. GS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; C keeps a meaningful value 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 +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
GS's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
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 momentum and quality.
C (Citigroup Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 27.7% against 17.4%.
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 most heavily.
Growth
GSGS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
GSGS on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
GSGS on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
GSGS 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 | GS | C | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.2% | +21.5% | GS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.1% | +19.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GS | C |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 22.87% | 2.61% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $5.000 | $2.040 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $14.000 | $2.320 |
| Years increased | 5 | 3 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #8 | #313 |
GS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 22.87% a year against C's 2.61%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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 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 | GS | 50 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | GSon balance | revenue growth -1.9% vs -47.4%; EPS growth -18.9% vs -11.2%; TTM ROE 17.9% vs 9.2%; gross margin 57.5% vs 53.7%; operating margin 25% vs 17.3% — GS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | C | Value 54 vs 59 |
| Technicals | C | Price vs 50-day -6.6% vs -6.3%; vs 200-day -7.8% vs -3.1% |
| Risk Resilience | GS | Risk Resilience 64 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | GS | Target upside 23.2% vs 21.5% |
✓ 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 moderate at 7 points.
- 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20GS lead: Reversed — C led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GS now leads by 7.
- Today
- GS +7
- 50 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- GS +5
- 44 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- C +5
- 37 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- C +6
- 48 vs 54
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when GS moved ahead of C.
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
Only GS
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only C
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.25%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.09%, AIQ +1 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 Momentum gap — currently 16 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 — 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
GS leads on balance| Metric | GS | C |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.9% | -47.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -18.9% | -11.2% |
| Gross margin | 57.5% | 53.7% |
| Operating margin | 25% | 17.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.9% | 9.2% |
| Debt to equity | 6.71 | 3.9 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | GS | C |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.8% | -7.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -19.4% | -7.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.5% | -7% |
| Year to date | 0.7% | 5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.7% | 27.3% |
Technicals
C has the stronger structure| Metric | GS | C |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.5 | 36 |
| ADX (14) | 32.6 | 23.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.6% | -6.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.8% | -3.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.4% | 27.7% |
Risk
GS is the more resilient| Metric | GS | C |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.64 | 1.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.55 | 0.81 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -24% | -16.5% |
| Current drawdown | -23.2% | -15.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 32% | 29.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -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 Oct 21, 2026, scoring 50 against C's 43. The edge comes from momentum and quality. C is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GS over C?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GS leads Momentum by 16 points; GS leads Quality by 11 points; GS leads Risk Resilience by 7 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 +23.2% upside for GS and +21.5% for C, so the Street currently favors GS. 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 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, 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 16 points. 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, GS or C?
GS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GS on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 GS more profitable than C?
GS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.5% vs 53.7%; operating margin 25% vs 17.3%; ttm roe 17.9% vs 9.2%.
Is GS's lead over C getting stronger or weaker?
GS lead: Reversed — C led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GS now leads by 7. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when GS moved ahead of C.
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 Momentum gap — currently 16 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 — 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 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
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.