ACN vs BAC Stock Comparison
ACN currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 71 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ACN and BAC?
ACN leads the current stock comparison as Accenture plc, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Accenture plc vs Bank of America Corporation
ACN leads
ACN leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ACN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Accenture plc
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ACN over BAC, 71 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. ACN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while BAC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ACN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BAC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACN today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ACN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 24 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Accenture plc and Bank of America Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ACN and BAC 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.
- Momentum88 vs 26ACN +62
- Quality65 vs 49ACN +16
- Value72 vs 57ACN +15
- Risk Resilience50 vs 60BAC +10
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ACN. ACN’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; BAC keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
ACN's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ACN and BAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ACN (Accenture plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
ACNACN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ACNACN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ACNACN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
ACNACN on the Momentum factor, by 62 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
BACBAC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ACN, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ACN | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -19% | +32.5% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +70.8% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 11 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ACN | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 13.10% | 8.45% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.280 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $6.070 | $1.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #49 | #133 |
ACN grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 13.10% a year against BAC's 8.45%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ACN | 71 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | ACNon balance | revenue growth 3.7% vs -3.3%; EPS growth 29.1% vs -23.8%; TTM ROE 25% vs 10.7%; gross margin 32% vs 60.4%; operating margin 14.9% vs 22.4% — ACN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ACN | Value 72 vs 57 |
| Technicals | ACN | Price vs 50-day 29.2% vs -12.1%; vs 200-day 27% vs -7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 50 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside -19% vs 32.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ACN and BAC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 24 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 ACN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ACN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ACN +24
- 71 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- ACN +25
- 72 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- ACN +24
- 65 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- ACN +15
- 65 vs 50
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ACN
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.28%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
ACN 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +4.46%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.21%, 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.
- 1BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 62 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACN's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ACN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
ACN leads on balance| Metric | ACN | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.7% | -3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 29.1% | -23.8% |
| Gross margin | 32% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 14.9% | 22.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.26 | 1.28 |
Performance
ACN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ACN | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 32.7% | -6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 49.1% | -17.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 35% | -3.8% |
| Year to date | -9.3% | -7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.7% | -3.3% |
Technicals
ACN has the stronger structure| Metric | ACN | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.7 | 31.2 |
| ADX (14) | 39 | 49.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 29.2% | -12.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 27% | -7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 76.3% | 20.8% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | ACN | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.09 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.09 | -0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.13 | -0.32 |
| Max drawdown | -56.9% | -22.3% |
| Current drawdown | -15.6% | -21.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.7% | 21.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ACN or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ACN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 71 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from momentum and quality. BAC is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 ACN or BAC the better buy right now?
ACN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ACN over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ACN leads Momentum by 62 points; ACN leads Quality by 16 points; ACN leads Value by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ACN or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply -19% upside for ACN and +32.5% for BAC, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ACN. 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, ACN or BAC?
ACN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ACN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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, ACN or BAC?
ACN 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, ACN or BAC?
ACN on the Momentum factor, by 62 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in 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, ACN or BAC?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 10 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ACN more profitable than BAC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 32% vs 60.4%; operating margin 14.9% vs 22.4%; ttm roe 25% vs 10.7%. ACN leads on one measure and BAC on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is ACN's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
ACN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 24 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ACN vs BAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 62 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACN's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ACN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ACN and BAC?
ACN: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 ACN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ACN and BAC with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.