AFG vs BAC Stock Comparison
AFG currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between AFG and BAC?
AFG leads the current stock comparison as American Financial Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
American Financial Group, Inc. vs Bank of America Corporation
AFG leads
AFG leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AFG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
American Financial Group, Inc.
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AFG over BAC, 63 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. AFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. AFG 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 AFG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AFG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare American Financial Group, 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 AFG 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.
- Momentum80 vs 26AFG +54
- Quality56 vs 49AFG +7
- Value58 vs 57Even
- Risk Resilience61 vs 60Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AFG. AFG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
AFG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AFG and BAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AFG (American Financial Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on 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
AFGAFG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AFGAFG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
AFGAFG on the Momentum factor, by 54 points.
Lower downside
AFGAFG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
BACBAC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AFG, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AFG | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.8% | +32.5% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +10.8% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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 | AFG | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.13% | 8.45% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.850 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.280 | $1.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #133 |
AFG grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.13% 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 AFG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AFG | 63 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | AFGon balance | revenue growth 8.5% vs -3.3%; EPS growth 30.6% vs -23.8%; TTM ROE 20% vs 10.7%; gross margin 26% vs 60.4%; operating margin 14.7% vs 22.4% — AFG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 58 vs 57 |
| Technicals | AFG | Price vs 50-day 7.3% vs -12.1%; vs 200-day 10.4% vs -7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside -3.8% vs 32.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AFG 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 AFG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30AFG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AFG +16
- 63 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- AFG +17
- 64 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- AFG +15
- 56 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- AFG +10
- 59 vs 49
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AFG
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.3%)
- 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.
AFG 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.5%, AIQ 0 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 54 points behind, the largest single contributor to AFG's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AFG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
AFG leads on balance| Metric | AFG | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.5% | -3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 30.6% | -23.8% |
| Gross margin | 26% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 14.7% | 22.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.38 | 1.28 |
Performance
AFG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AFG | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.9% | -6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.1% | -17.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.1% | -3.8% |
| Year to date | 10% | -7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.7% | -3.3% |
Technicals
AFG has the stronger structure| Metric | AFG | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.7 | 31.2 |
| ADX (14) | 38 | 49.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.3% | -12.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.4% | -7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18% | 20.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AFG | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.2 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.64 | -0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.12 | -0.32 |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -22.3% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -21.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.1% | 21.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AFG or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AFG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 63 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 AFG or BAC the better buy right now?
AFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 AFG over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AFG leads Momentum by 54 points; AFG leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AFG or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply -3.8% upside for AFG and +32.5% for BAC, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AFG. 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, AFG or BAC?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, AFG or BAC?
AFG 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, AFG or BAC?
AFG on the Momentum factor, by 54 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, AFG or BAC?
AFG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AFG 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 AFG more profitable than BAC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 26% vs 60.4%; operating margin 14.7% vs 22.4%; ttm roe 20% vs 10.7%. AFG 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 AFG's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
AFG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AFG 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 54 points behind, the largest single contributor to AFG's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AFG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 AFG and BAC?
AFG: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 AFG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AFG 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.