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).
Sprott Physical Gold Trust vs Cboe Global Markets, Inc. — Side-by-side quantitative comparison
CBOE and PHYS are remarkably close in our quantitative rankings. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. holds a slight edge with a composite score of 67.8/100 (Buy) versus Sprott Physical Gold Trust at 67.0/100 (Buy). With a spread of just 0.8 points, the difference is marginal — investors should weigh qualitative factors like management quality, competitive positioning, and industry outlook to make a final decision.
For the Quality factor — which measures profitability and business quality through metrics like ROE, gross margins, and capital efficiency — CBOE leads at 75/100, while PHYS trails at 64/100 (CBOE: 75/100, PHYS: 64/100). The 11-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in quality characteristics between these stocks.
For the Value factor — which evaluates whether a stock is cheap or expensive relative to its earnings, book value, and cash flows — PHYS leads at 82/100, while CBOE trails at 63/100 (PHYS: 82/100, CBOE: 63/100). The 20-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in value characteristics between these stocks.
For the Momentum factor — which captures price trends and institutional sentiment over the trailing 3-12 months — PHYS leads at 91/100, while CBOE trails at 77/100 (PHYS: 91/100, CBOE: 77/100). The 14-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 — CBOE leads at 47/100, while PHYS trails at 30/100 (CBOE: 47/100, PHYS: 30/100). The 17-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 — CBOE leads at 85/100, while PHYS trails at 66/100 (CBOE: 85/100, PHYS: 66/100). The 19-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in stability characteristics between these stocks.
On the Short Interest factor, which tracks institutional bearish positioning and potential risk from elevated short selling, these stocks are closely matched (PHYS: 56/100, CBOE: 53/100). The narrow 3-point spread suggests similar short interest profiles, so this factor alone is unlikely to be a decisive differentiator.
Based on our 6-factor model, Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (CBOE) is utilizing a stronger overall profile than PHYS, with a Composite Score of 68 vs 67. The comparison is extremely close. While CBOE leads slightly on Stability, PHYS remains a competitive alternative.
| Overall Rating | ||
| Composite Score | 68 | 67 |
| Rank | #161 | #191 |
| Stars | 4 / 5 | 4 / 5 |
| Action | Buy | Buy |
| Factor Scores | ||
| Quality | 75 | 64 |
| Value | 63 | 82 |
| Momentum | 77 | 91 |
| Stability | 85 | 66 |
| Investment | 47 | 30 |
| Short Interest | 53 | 56 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E Ratio | 21.32 | — |
| P/B Ratio | 5.25 | — |
| P/S Ratio | 5.62 | — |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.72 | — |
| Dividend Yield | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| ROE | 24.0% | 22.5% |
| ROA | 13.7% | 22.8% |
| Gross Margin | 41.7% | 101.8% |
| Operating Margin | 32.4% | 100.0% |
| Net Margin | 26.4% | 100.0% |
| Growth & Risk | ||
| Revenue Growth | 8.2% | 138.9% |
| Debt/Equity | 30.00 | 0.00 |
| Beta | -0.10 | 0.03 |
| Market | ||
| Market Cap | $25.65B | $8.42B |
Based on our 6-factor quantitative model, CBOE currently has the higher composite score (67.8/100, Buy) and ranks #161 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.
PHYS has the higher value score at 82/100 compared to CBOE at 63/100. 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.