MAIN vs OBDC Stock Comparison
Compare MAIN and OBDC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MAIN and OBDC?
MAIN leads the current stock comparison as Main Street Capital Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Main Street Capital Corporation vs Blue Owl Capital Corporation
MAIN leads
MAIN leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors OBDC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MAIN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Main Street Capital Corporation
Blue Owl Capital Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MAIN over OBDC, 53 versus 52 as of Sep 6, 2026. MAIN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while OBDC holds the stronger value profile. MAIN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors OBDC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAIN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. MAIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Main Street Capital Corporation and Blue Owl 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 MAIN and OBDC 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%38 vs 54OBDC +16
- Quality30%63 vs 51MAIN +12
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 52MAIN +9
- Momentum25%56 vs 51MAIN +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MAIN. MAIN’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; OBDC keeps a meaningful value 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.
MAIN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MAIN and OBDC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MAIN (Main Street Capital Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
OBDC (Blue Owl Capital Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
MAINMAIN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
MAINMAIN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
OBDCOBDC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
MAINMAIN on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
MAINMAIN on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
OBDCOBDC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MAIN, analyst targets favor OBDC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MAIN | OBDC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.3% | +14% | OBDC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 2 | 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 MAIN. 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 | 53 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | MAINon balance | revenue growth -8.5% vs 28.7%; EPS growth 192.6% vs 3.6%; TTM ROE 14.8% vs 4%; gross margin 85.3% vs 67.6%; operating margin 64.7% vs 48.7% — MAIN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | OBDC | Value 38 vs 54 |
| Technicals | MAIN | Price vs 50-day 3.6% vs 2.3%; vs 200-day 2.2% vs -1.7% |
| Risk Resilience | MAIN | Risk Resilience 61 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | OBDC | Target upside -5.3% vs 14% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MAIN and OBDC 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 MAIN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5MAIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MAIN +1
- 53 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- MAIN +3
- 54 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- MAIN +1
- 58 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- MAIN +4
- 50 vs 46
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jun 5 when MAIN moved ahead of OBDC.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.44%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.07%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MAIN 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.67%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.18%, 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.
- 1OBDC closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAIN's edge.
- 2OBDC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MAIN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
MAIN leads on balance| Metric | MAIN | OBDC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -8.5% | 28.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 192.6% | 3.6% |
| Gross margin | 85.3% | 67.6% |
| Operating margin | 64.7% | 48.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.8% | 4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.8 | 0.87 |
Performance
MAIN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MAIN | OBDC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.5% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.3% | 3.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.5% | -0.6% |
| Year to date | -4.5% | -8.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.1% | -19.8% |
Technicals
MAIN has the stronger structure| Metric | MAIN | OBDC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.6 | 44.9 |
| ADX (14) | 27.3 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.6% | 2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.2% | -1.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.7% | 16.8% |
Risk
MAIN is the more resilient| Metric | MAIN | OBDC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.77 | 0.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.58 | -0.99 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.82 | -1.54 |
| Max drawdown | -26.1% | -25.6% |
| Current drawdown | -14.1% | -20.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.8% | 24.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MAIN or OBDC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MAIN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 53 against OBDC's 52. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. OBDC 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 MAIN or OBDC the better buy right now?
MAIN 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MAIN over OBDC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. OBDC leads Value by 16 points; MAIN leads Quality by 12 points; MAIN leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MAIN or OBDC?
Analyst price targets imply -5.3% upside for MAIN and +14% for OBDC, so the Street currently favors OBDC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MAIN. 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, MAIN or OBDC?
OBDC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OBDC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, MAIN or OBDC?
MAIN 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, MAIN or OBDC?
MAIN on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, MAIN or OBDC?
MAIN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAIN 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 MAIN more profitable than OBDC?
MAIN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 85.3% vs 67.6%; operating margin 64.7% vs 48.7%; ttm roe 14.8% vs 4%.
Is MAIN's lead over OBDC getting stronger or weaker?
MAIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-05, when MAIN moved ahead of OBDC.
What would change the MAIN vs OBDC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: OBDC closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAIN's edge; OBDC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MAIN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 MAIN and OBDC?
MAIN: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. OBDC: 0 bullish / 2 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 MAIN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On OBDC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MAIN and OBDC 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.