BWMN vs. FCN

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BWMN (Bowman Consulting Group Ltd.) and FCN (FTI Consulting, Inc.) are both stocks. Both operate in the Consulting Services industry within the Industrials sector. Over the past 5 years, BWMN returned 16.82%/yr vs 0.93%/yr for FCN. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

BWMN vs. FCN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. (BWMN) and FTI Consulting, Inc. (FCN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BWMN achieves a -10.21% return, which is significantly higher than FCN's -17.46% return.

BWMN

• 1D: -1.76%
• 1M: -6.56%
• YTD: -10.21%
• 6M: -12.49%
• 1Y: 10.80%
• 3Y*: -1.00%
• 5Y*: 16.82%
• 10Y*: —

FCN

• 1D: -3.15%
• 1M: -8.50%
• YTD: -17.46%
• 6M: -21.07%
• 1Y: -11.19%
• 3Y*: -9.18%
• 5Y*: 0.93%
• 10Y*: 13.36%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BWMN vs. FCN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BWMN Bowman Consulting Group Ltd.	-10.21%	32.34%	-29.76%	62.56%	2.85%	51.75%
FCN FTI Consulting, Inc.	-17.46%	-10.62%	-4.03%	25.41%	3.51%	6.18%

Correlation

The correlation between BWMN and FCN is 0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.14
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2021	0.08

Fundamentals

EPS BWMN : $0.64 FCN : $10.96
PE Ratio BWMN : 46.68 FCN : 12.86
PEG Ratio BWMN : 0.10 FCN : 2.36
PS Ratio BWMN : 1.31 FCN : 0.89
Total Revenue (TTM) BWMN : $377.09M FCN : $3.87B
Gross Profit (TTM) BWMN : $175.89M FCN : $1.23B
EBITDA (TTM) BWMN : $42.71M FCN : $462.64M

Return for Risk

BWMN vs. FCN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BWMN

BWMN Risk / Return Rank: 48
BWMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
BWMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
BWMN Omega Ratio Rank: 47
BWMN Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
BWMN Martin Ratio Rank: 48

FCN

FCN Risk / Return Rank: 21
FCN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
FCN Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FCN Omega Ratio Rank: 22
FCN Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
FCN Martin Ratio Rank: 11

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BWMN vs. FCN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. (BWMN) and FTI Consulting, Inc. (FCN). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BWMN	FCN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.23	-0.41	+0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.61	-0.40	+1.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	0.95	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.27	-0.46	+0.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.51	-1.32	+1.83

BWMN vs. FCN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BWMN Sharpe Ratio is 0.23, which is higher than the FCN Sharpe Ratio of -0.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BWMN and FCN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BWMN vs. FCN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BWMN drawdown since its inception was -56.21%, smaller than the maximum FCN drawdown of -88.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BWMN and FCN.

Drawdown Indicators

	BWMN	FCN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.21%	-88.02%	+31.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-39.93%	-24.61%	-15.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-56.21%	-38.96%	-17.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.21%	-38.96%	-17.25%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-38.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.27%	-38.96%	+5.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.71%	-30.30%	+9.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	21.12%	8.50%	+12.62%

Volatility

BWMN vs. FCN - Volatility Comparison

Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. (BWMN) has a higher volatility of 10.31% compared to FTI Consulting, Inc. (FCN) at 7.35%. This indicates that BWMN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BWMN	FCN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.31%	7.35%	+2.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.49%	22.86%	+7.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	46.46%	27.51%	+18.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	47.10%	29.13%	+17.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.92%	30.54%	+16.38%

Dividends

BWMN vs. FCN - Dividend Comparison

Neither BWMN nor FCN has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Financials

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BWMN and FCN in my portfolio?

BWMN and FCN have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BWMN or FCN?

BWMN has higher volatility (10.31%) compared to FCN (7.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BWMN dropped -56.21% vs FCN's -88.02%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BWMN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.23 vs -0.41), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.