NOAH vs RILYG

Noah Holdings Limited vs BRC Group Holdings, Inc. - 5.00 — Valuation Comparison 2026

NOAH

Investment Advice
Noah Holdings Limited
Quality
8.2
out of 10
Value Trap
29
LOW
Price
$10.57
Last close
Models
12/13
Active
VS

RILYG

Investment Advice
BRC Group Holdings, Inc. - 5.00
Quality
4.8
out of 10
Value Trap
29
LOW
Price
$24.65
Last close
Models
11/13
Active

Model-by-Model Comparison

ModelType NOAH Fair ValueNOAH Upside RILYG Fair ValueRILYG Upside
Bayesian DCF Intrinsic $24.45 +131.3% $38.89 +57.8%
Earnings Power Value Intrinsic $22.47 +112.6% $25.28 +2.6%
EROIC Spread Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
First Chicago Scenario $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Markov DDM Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
ML-RIV Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Dynamic NAV Asset-Based $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
PWERM Option-Based $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Regime Cross-Sectional Relative $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Sentiment SOTP Hybrid $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
CUCE Ensemble Ensemble $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
FTNN Topology Relative $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
RCMH-DCF Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
🔒

Unlock Full 13-Model Comparison

Access all valuation models for NOAH vs RILYG — including EROIC Spread, First Chicago, Markov DDM, PWERM, and 7 more.

Access Full Analysis — From $27/mo →

NOAH vs RILYG — Which Stock Is More Undervalued?

NOAH scores higher with a 8.2/10 quality rating vs RILYG's 4.8/10. Both stocks are analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR filings across 13 independent models.

Comparing Noah Holdings Limited (NOAH) and BRC Group Holdings, Inc. - 5.00 (RILYG) across 13 institutional-grade valuation models reveals how each company's intrinsic value stacks up against its market price. CirclFi's engine processes SEC EDGAR 10-K and 10-Q filings, FRED macroeconomic data, and GDELT news sentiment to generate independent fair value estimates daily.

NOAH currently trades at $10.57 with a QOC of 8.2/10, while RILYG trades at $24.65 with a QOC of 4.8/10.

Both companies are analyzed with models spanning intrinsic (Bayesian DCF, EPV), scenario-based (First Chicago), regime-switching (Markov DDM, RCMH-DCF), machine learning (ML-RIV, FTNN Topology), and ensemble methods (CUCE).