ALAB vs BAC Stock Comparison
BAC currently leads ALAB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 42. The clearest difference is value, while ALAB has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between ALAB and BAC?
BAC leads the current stock comparison as Bank of America Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock vs Bank of America Corporation
BAC leads
BAC leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from ALAB.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BAC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BAC over ALAB, 46 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. BAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while ALAB holds the stronger quality profile. BAC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BAC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. BAC lead: Reversed — ALAB led by 21 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BAC now leads by 4.
Compare Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock 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 ALAB 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.
- Quality85 vs 49ALAB +36
- Value24 vs 57BAC +33
- Risk Resilience40 vs 58BAC +18
- Momentum15 vs 24BAC +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BAC. BAC’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; ALAB keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
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 5 active signals are unchanged.
BAC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALAB and BAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
ALAB (Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 60.5% against 21.8%.
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
ALABALAB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
BACBAC on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 | ALAB | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11% | +30.5% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +107.7% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 42 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | ALAB | revenue growth 27.3% vs -3.3%; EPS growth 89.4% vs -23.8%; TTM ROE 25.2% vs 10.7%; gross margin 75.1% vs 60.4%; operating margin 22.8% vs 22.4% |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 24 vs 57 |
| Technicals | ALAB | Price vs 50-day -7.5% vs -13.2%; vs 200-day 13.5% vs -8.1% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 40 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 11% vs 30.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALAB 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 BAC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BAC lead: Reversed — ALAB led by 21 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BAC now leads by 4.
- Today
- BAC +4
- 42 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- ALAB +2
- 43 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- ALAB +21
- 61 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- ALAB +2
- 56 vs 54
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when BAC moved ahead of ALAB.
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ALAB
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.15%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, MACD Bearish Crossover.
BAC 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 +1.85%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.28%, 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.
- 1ALAB closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge.
- 2ALAB's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3BAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
ALAB leads on balance| Metric | ALAB | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 27.3% | -3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 89.4% | -23.8% |
| Gross margin | 75.1% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 22.8% | 22.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.2% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 1.28 |
Performance
ALAB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ALAB | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.5% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -21.6% | -9.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.9% | -16.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 48.4% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | 71.2% | -7.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 74.1% | 0.4% |
Technicals
ALAB has the stronger structure| Metric | ALAB | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.6 | 25.5 |
| ADX (14) | 17.8 | 48.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.5% | -13.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.5% | -8.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 60.5% | 21.8% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | ALAB | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.81 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.65 | -0.16 |
| Max drawdown | -48.3% | -22.3% |
| Current drawdown | -41% | -21.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 97.2% | 21.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -10.1% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALAB or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BAC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 46 against ALAB's 42. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. ALAB is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 ALAB or BAC the better buy right now?
BAC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BAC over ALAB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ALAB leads Quality by 36 points; BAC leads Value by 33 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALAB or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply +11% upside for ALAB and +30.5% 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, ALAB or BAC?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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, ALAB or BAC?
ALAB 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, ALAB or BAC?
BAC on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, ALAB or BAC?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 ALAB more profitable than BAC?
ALAB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 75.1% vs 60.4%; operating margin 22.8% vs 22.4%; ttm roe 25.2% vs 10.7%.
Is BAC's lead over ALAB getting stronger or weaker?
BAC lead: Reversed — ALAB led by 21 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BAC now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-17, when BAC moved ahead of ALAB.
What would change the ALAB vs BAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ALAB closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge; ALAB's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; BAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ALAB and BAC?
ALAB: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 ALAB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ALAB 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.