AEO vs BAC Stock Comparison
AEO currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between AEO and BAC?
AEO leads the current stock comparison as American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. vs Bank of America Corporation
AEO leads
AEO leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AEO, and its lead is narrowing.
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AEO over BAC, 55 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. AEO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while BAC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AEO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BAC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AEO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. 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 AEO 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.
- Momentum55 vs 24AEO +31
- Value68 vs 57AEO +11
- Risk Resilience50 vs 58BAC +8
- Quality46 vs 49Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AEO. AEO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; BAC keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short 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 5 active signals are unchanged.
AEO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AEO and BAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AEO (American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, 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
AEOAEO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BACBAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AEOAEO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
AEOAEO on the Momentum factor, by 31 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 AEO, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AEO | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9% | +29.5% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +62.3% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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 | AEO | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.70% | 8.45% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.275 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.500 | $1.080 |
| Years increased | 2 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #133 |
AEO grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.70% a year against BAC's 8.45%. BAC never reduced its regular dividend in the window; AEO did in 2 years. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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 AEO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AEO | 55 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | revenue growth -32.1% vs -3.3%; EPS growth -73.1% vs -23.8%; TTM ROE 17.2% vs 10.7%; gross margin 34.8% vs 60.4%; operating margin 7.6% vs 22.4% — BAC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AEO | Value 68 vs 57 |
| Technicals | AEO | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs -12.6%; vs 200-day -4.7% vs -8.1% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 50 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 9% vs 29.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AEO 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 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 AEO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AEO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AEO +9
- 55 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- AEO +17
- 58 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- AEO +16
- 56 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +6
- 48 vs 54
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when AEO 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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
Only AEO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.40%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.54%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BAC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.14%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bearish Crossover.
BAC is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.58%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.76%, 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 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEO's edge.
- 2BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3AEO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate AEO's advantage entirely.
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 | AEO | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -32.1% | -3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -73.1% | -23.8% |
| Gross margin | 34.8% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 7.6% | 22.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.2% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.14 | 1.28 |
Performance
AEO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AEO | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.9% | -9.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.1% | -16.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.8% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | -32.5% | -7.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.5% | 0.4% |
Technicals
AEO has the stronger structure| Metric | AEO | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.5 | 25.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 48.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | -12.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.7% | -8.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.7% | 21.8% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | AEO | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.71 | -0.16 |
| Max drawdown | -48.5% | -22.3% |
| Current drawdown | -36.8% | -21.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 51.7% | 21.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.5% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AEO or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AEO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 55 against BAC's 46. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 AEO or BAC the better buy right now?
AEO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 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 AEO over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AEO leads Momentum by 31 points; AEO leads Value by 11 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AEO or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply +9% upside for AEO and +29.5% for BAC, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AEO. 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, AEO or BAC?
AEO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AEO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, AEO 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, AEO or BAC?
AEO on the Momentum factor, by 31 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, AEO or BAC?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 AEO more profitable than BAC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 34.8% vs 60.4%; operating margin 7.6% vs 22.4%; ttm roe 17.2% vs 10.7%. AEO 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 AEO's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
AEO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when AEO moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the AEO 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 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEO's edge; BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; AEO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate AEO's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AEO and BAC?
AEO: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. BAC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 AEO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AEO 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.