AEM vs BAC Stock Comparison
AEM currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while BAC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AEM and BAC?
AEM leads the current stock comparison as Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited vs Bank of America Corporation
AEM leads
AEM leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AEM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AEM over BAC, 58 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. AEM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while BAC holds the stronger value profile. AEM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AEM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Agnico Eagle Mines Limited 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 AEM 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.
- Quality81 vs 49AEM +32
- Momentum40 vs 26AEM +14
- Value47 vs 57BAC +10
- Risk Resilience61 vs 60Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AEM. AEM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; BAC keeps a meaningful value 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: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 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.
AEM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AEM and BAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AEM (Agnico Eagle Mines Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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
AEMAEM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AEMAEM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
AEMAEM on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
AEMAEM 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 | AEM | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +37.6% | +32.5% | AEM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.5% | +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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AEM | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.99% | 8.45% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.950 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.600 | $1.080 |
| Years increased | 2 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #76 | #133 |
AEM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.99% 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AEM | 58 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | AEMon balance | revenue growth -9.6% vs -3.3%; EPS growth -8.3% vs -23.8%; TTM ROE 22.6% vs 10.7%; gross margin 62.5% vs 60.4%; operating margin 58.3% vs 22.4% — AEM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 47 vs 57 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -14.9% vs -12.1%; vs 200-day -3.4% vs -7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | AEM | Target upside 37.6% vs 32.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AEM and BAC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 AEM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28AEM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AEM +11
- 58 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- AEM +8
- 55 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- AEM +12
- 53 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- AEM +19
- 69 vs 50
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 22 when AEM moved ahead of BAC.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AEM
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.59%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
AEM 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.99%, 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 Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEM's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AEM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
AEM leads on balance| Metric | AEM | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.6% | -3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | -23.8% |
| Gross margin | 62.5% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 58.3% | 22.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.6% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 1.28 |
Performance
AEM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AEM | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 21.5% | -17.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.2% | -3.8% |
| Year to date | 8% | -7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.1% | -3.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AEM | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.3 | 31.2 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 49.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.9% | -12.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.4% | -7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.8% | 20.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AEM | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.72 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.48 | -0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | -0.32 |
| Max drawdown | -45.9% | -22.3% |
| Current drawdown | -27.4% | -21.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.8% | 21.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AEM or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AEM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 58 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from quality and momentum. BAC is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 AEM or BAC the better buy right now?
AEM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AEM over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AEM leads Quality by 32 points; AEM leads Momentum by 14 points; BAC leads Value by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AEM or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply +37.6% upside for AEM and +32.5% for BAC, so the Street currently favors AEM. 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, AEM or BAC?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, AEM or BAC?
AEM 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, AEM or BAC?
AEM on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, AEM or BAC?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AEM more profitable than BAC?
AEM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 62.5% vs 60.4%; operating margin 58.3% vs 22.4%; ttm roe 22.6% vs 10.7%.
Is AEM's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
AEM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-22, when AEM moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the AEM vs BAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEM's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AEM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 AEM and BAC?
AEM: 1 bullish / 2 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 AEM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AEM 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.