HAFC vs IBKR Stock Comparison
Hanmi Financial Corporation vs Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.
HAFC leads
HAFC leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality. Wall Street currently favors IBKR on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HAFC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Hanmi Financial Corporation
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HAFC over IBKR, 61 versus 45 as of Sep 5, 2026. HAFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. HAFC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors IBKR. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAFC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. HAFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hanmi Financial Corporation and Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare HAFC and IBKR 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.
- Value30%58 vs 24HAFC +34
- Quality30%64 vs 51HAFC +13
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 56HAFC +6
- Momentum25%60 vs 58Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HAFC. HAFC’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +20
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
HAFC's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HAFC and IBKR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HAFC (Hanmi Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
IBKR (Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 46.6% against 16.2%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
HAFCHAFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
IBKRIBKR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HAFCHAFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
HAFCHAFC on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
IBKRIBKR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HAFC, analyst targets favor IBKR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HAFC | IBKR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5% | +15.9% | IBKR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +8.9% | +14.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HAFC | 61 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | IBKR | revenue growth -45.6% vs 9.3%; EPS growth 2.6% vs 16.7%; TTM ROE 11.2% vs 20.5%; gross margin 56.4% vs 93.3%; operating margin 17.3% vs 87.1% |
| Valuation | HAFC | Value 58 vs 24 |
| Technicals | IBKR | Price vs 50-day 0.4% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day 10% vs 17.4% |
| Risk Resilience | HAFC | Risk Resilience 62 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | IBKR | Target upside 5% vs 15.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HAFC and IBKR and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 HAFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4HAFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HAFC +16
- 61 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- HAFC +6
- 56 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- HAFC +17
- 64 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- HAFC +16
- 65 vs 49
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.54%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.61%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
IBKR 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 +0.69%, AIQ +5 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.36%, 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.
- 1IBKR closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAFC's edge.
- 2IBKR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3HAFC'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
IBKR leads on balance| Metric | HAFC | IBKR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -45.6% | 9.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.6% | 16.7% |
| Gross margin | 56.4% | 93.3% |
| Operating margin | 17.3% | 87.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.2% | 20.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 7.69 |
Performance
IBKR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | HAFC | IBKR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | 5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.4% | 9.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 24.5% | 38.9% |
| Year to date | 18.6% | 44% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.9% | 44.8% |
Technicals
IBKR has the stronger structure| Metric | HAFC | IBKR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.8 | 47.2 |
| ADX (14) | 14.8 | 11.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.4% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10% | 17.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 46.6% |
Risk
HAFC is the more resilient| Metric | HAFC | IBKR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 1.98 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | 1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 1.68 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -18.8% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -5.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.4% | 40.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HAFC or IBKR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HAFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 against IBKR's 45. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 HAFC or IBKR the better buy right now?
HAFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HAFC over IBKR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. HAFC leads Value by 34 points; HAFC leads Quality by 13 points; HAFC leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HAFC or IBKR?
Analyst price targets imply +5% upside for HAFC and +15.9% for IBKR, so the Street currently favors IBKR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HAFC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, HAFC or IBKR?
HAFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HAFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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, HAFC or IBKR?
IBKR 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, HAFC or IBKR?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, HAFC or IBKR?
HAFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HAFC on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 HAFC more profitable than IBKR?
IBKR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56.4% vs 93.3%; operating margin 17.3% vs 87.1%; ttm roe 11.2% vs 20.5%.
Is HAFC's lead over IBKR getting stronger or weaker?
HAFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the HAFC vs IBKR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IBKR closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAFC's edge; IBKR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; HAFC'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 HAFC and IBKR?
HAFC: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. IBKR: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 HAFC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IBKR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HAFC and IBKR 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.