ADPT vs BAC Stock Comparison
BAC currently leads ADPT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 41. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while ADPT has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ADPT and BAC?
BAC leads the current stock comparison as Bank of America Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation vs Bank of America Corporation
BAC leads
BAC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support BAC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BAC over ADPT, 47 versus 41 as of Oct 31, 2026. BAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while ADPT holds the stronger momentum profile. BAC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BAC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. BAC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation 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 ADPT 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.
- Momentum72 vs 26ADPT +46
- Risk Resilience27 vs 60BAC +33
- Value34 vs 57BAC +23
- Quality30 vs 49BAC +19
5 of 6 evidence groups favor BAC. BAC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; ADPT keeps a meaningful momentum 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
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
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.
BAC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ADPT and BAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
ADPT (Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 65.2% against 20.8%.
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
BACBAC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BACBAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
ADPTADPT on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 33 points.
Analyst upside
BACBAC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ADPT | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.7% | +32.5% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +53.3% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BAC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BAC | 41 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | EPS growth -92.3% vs -23.8%; TTM ROE -32.6% vs 10.7%; gross margin 75.4% vs 60.4%; operating margin -12.2% vs 22.4% — BAC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 34 vs 57 |
| Technicals | ADPT | Price vs 50-day 1.3% vs -12.1%; vs 200-day 45.4% vs -7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 27 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 5.7% vs 32.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ADPT and BAC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 BAC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BAC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BAC +6
- 41 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- BAC +16
- 31 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- BAC +5
- 36 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +7
- 43 vs 50
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when BAC moved ahead of ADPT.
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 / 0 bearish / 3 neutral
Only ADPT
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.23%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.43%, 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.
- 1ADPT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge.
- 2ADPT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3BAC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
BAC leads on balance| Metric | ADPT | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1% | -3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -92.3% | -23.8% |
| Gross margin | 75.4% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | -12.2% | 22.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -32.6% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 2.87 | 1.28 |
Performance
ADPT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ADPT | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 12% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.8% | -6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.3% | -17.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 109.7% | -3.8% |
| Year to date | 74.7% | -7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 64.8% | -3.3% |
Technicals
ADPT has the stronger structure| Metric | ADPT | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.5 | 31.2 |
| ADX (14) | 18 | 49.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.3% | -12.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 45.4% | -7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 65.2% | 20.8% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | ADPT | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.66 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | -0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.59 | -0.32 |
| Max drawdown | -39.4% | -22.3% |
| Current drawdown | -4.9% | -21.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 66.9% | 21.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ADPT or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BAC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 47 against ADPT's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. ADPT is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 ADPT or BAC the better buy right now?
BAC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BAC over ADPT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ADPT leads Momentum by 46 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 33 points; BAC leads Value by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ADPT or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply +5.7% upside for ADPT and +32.5% for BAC, so the Street currently favors BAC. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ADPT or BAC?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, ADPT or BAC?
BAC 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, ADPT or BAC?
ADPT on the Momentum factor, by 46 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, ADPT or BAC?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 33 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 ADPT more profitable than BAC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 75.4% vs 60.4%; operating margin -12.2% vs 22.4%; ttm roe -32.6% vs 10.7%. ADPT 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 BAC's lead over ADPT getting stronger or weaker?
BAC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-10-06, when BAC moved ahead of ADPT.
What would change the ADPT vs BAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ADPT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge; ADPT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; BAC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 ADPT and BAC?
ADPT: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 3 neutral. BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on ADPT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ADPT 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.