IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Blank Capital Research ("BCR") is a technology platform, not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer. The algorithmically generated signals, scores, and rankings provided on this site ("God Mode" Signals) are for informational and research purposes only and do not constitute financial advice, investment recommendations, or an offer to sell or solicit an offer to buy any securities.
HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS: The "timing scores" and "regime signals" displayed are based on quantitative models. Hypothetical or simulated performance results have certain inherent limitations. Unlike an actual performance record, simulated results do not represent actual trading. Also, since the trades have not actually been executed, the results may have under-or-over compensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as lack of liquidity.
RISK OF LOSS: Trading in financial markets involves a high degree of risk and may result in the loss of your entire investment. Data provided by third-party sources (Intrinio, Snowflake) is believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed for accuracy or completeness. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
© 2026 Blank Capital Research. All rights reserved. System Version: Aegis V8 (God Mode).
Brookfield Property Partners L.P. vs Sprott Physical Gold & Silver Trust — Side-by-side quantitative comparison
CEF and BPYPP are remarkably close in our quantitative rankings. Sprott Physical Gold & Silver Trust holds a slight edge with a composite score of 60.3/100 (Hold) versus Brookfield Property Partners L.P. at 59.7/100 (Hold). With a spread of just 0.6 points, the difference is marginal — investors should weigh qualitative factors like management quality, competitive positioning, and industry outlook to make a final decision.
On the Quality factor, which measures profitability and business quality through metrics like ROE, gross margins, and capital efficiency, these stocks are closely matched (BPYPP: 76/100, CEF: 75/100). The narrow 2-point spread suggests similar quality profiles, so this factor alone is unlikely to be a decisive differentiator.
On the Value factor, which evaluates whether a stock is cheap or expensive relative to its earnings, book value, and cash flows, these stocks are closely matched (CEF: 25/100, BPYPP: 25/100). The narrow 0-point spread suggests similar value profiles, so this factor alone is unlikely to be a decisive differentiator.
For the Momentum factor — which captures price trends and institutional sentiment over the trailing 3-12 months — CEF leads at 96/100, while BPYPP trails at 45/100 (CEF: 96/100, BPYPP: 45/100). The 50-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in momentum characteristics between these stocks.
For the Investment factor — which assesses capital allocation quality including reinvestment rates and asset growth — BPYPP leads at 62/100, while CEF trails at 35/100 (BPYPP: 62/100, CEF: 35/100). The 27-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in investment characteristics between these stocks.
For the Stability factor — which measures financial health through leverage ratios and price volatility — BPYPP leads at 81/100, while CEF trails at 49/100 (BPYPP: 81/100, CEF: 49/100). The 33-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in stability characteristics between these stocks.
For the Short Interest factor — which tracks institutional bearish positioning and potential risk from elevated short selling — BPYPP leads at 63/100, while CEF trails at 48/100 (BPYPP: 63/100, CEF: 48/100). The 15-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in short interest characteristics between these stocks.
Based on our 6-factor model, Sprott Physical Gold & Silver Trust (CEF) is utilizing a stronger overall profile than BPYPP, with a Composite Score of 60 vs 60. The comparison is extremely close. While CEF leads slightly on Momentum, BPYPP remains a competitive alternative.
| Overall Rating | ||
| Composite Score | 60 | 60 |
| Rank | #658 | #719 |
| Stars | 3 / 5 | 3 / 5 |
| Action | Hold | Hold |
| Factor Scores | ||
| Quality | 75 | 76 |
| Value | 25 | 25 |
| Momentum | 96 | 45 |
| Stability | 49 | 81 |
| Investment | 35 | 62 |
| Short Interest | 48 | 63 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E Ratio | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | — | — |
| EV/EBITDA | — | — |
| Dividend Yield | — | 0.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| ROE | 22.0% | -4.6% |
| ROA | 22.0% | -1.7% |
| Gross Margin | 99.7% | 79.3% |
| Operating Margin | 1383.2% | 37.9% |
| Net Margin | 1383.2% | -21.9% |
| Growth & Risk | ||
| Revenue Growth | 721.1% | -3.9% |
| Debt/Equity | 0.00 | 228.00 |
| Beta | 0.20 | 0.30 |
| Market | ||
| Market Cap | $0 | $0 |
Based on our 6-factor quantitative model, CEF currently has the higher composite score (60.3/100, Hold) and ranks #658 in our universe. However, the "better" stock depends on your investment goals, risk tolerance, and time horizon. We recommend reviewing the full factor breakdown above before making a decision.
Our comparison analyzes six quantitative factors: Quality (profitability and business strength, 30% weight), Momentum (price trends, 25%), Value (valuation attractiveness, 15%), Investment (capital allocation, 10%), Stability (financial health, 10%), and Short Interest (institutional positioning, 10%). Each factor is scored 0-100 and combined into a composite score.
CEF has the higher value score at 25/100 compared to BPYPP at 25/100. A higher value score indicates the stock trades at a more attractive valuation relative to its earnings, book value, and cash flows.
Our stock rankings and comparisons are updated daily using the latest available market data, financial statements, and price information. Factor scores reflect the most recent quarterly filings and trailing price data.