AMP vs BAC Stock Comparison
AMP currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 61 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while BAC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AMP and BAC?
AMP leads the current stock comparison as Ameriprise Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. vs Bank of America Corporation
AMP leads
AMP leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AMP, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMP over BAC, 61 versus 47 as of Oct 24, 2026. AMP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while BAC holds the stronger value profile. AMP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BAC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMP today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. AMP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ameriprise Financial, 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 AMP 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.
- Quality77 vs 49AMP +28
- Momentum45 vs 25AMP +20
- Risk Resilience79 vs 59AMP +20
- Value50 vs 57BAC +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AMP. AMP’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; BAC keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Momentum -12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
AMP's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMP and BAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMP (Ameriprise Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
AMPAMP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AMPAMP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
AMPAMP on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
AMPAMP on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 AMP, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMP | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.4% | +31.1% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.4% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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 | AMP | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.96% | 8.45% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.090 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $6.280 | $1.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #124 | #133 |
AMP grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.96% 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AMP | 61 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | AMPon balance | revenue growth 2.6% vs -3.3%; EPS growth 23.5% vs -23.8%; TTM ROE 61.7% vs 10.7%; gross margin 50.2% vs 60.4%; operating margin 27.1% vs 22.4% — AMP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 50 vs 57 |
| Technicals | AMP | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs -12.4%; vs 200-day -0.2% vs -8.2% |
| Risk Resilience | AMP | Risk Resilience 79 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 8.4% vs 31.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMP 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 wide at 14 points. (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 AMP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23AMP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AMP +14
- 61 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- AMP +18
- 65 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- AMP +13
- 54 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- AMP +13
- 64 vs 51
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only AMP
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.93%, AIQ -3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.02%, 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 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMP's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AMP'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
AMP leads on balance| Metric | AMP | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.6% | -3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.5% | -23.8% |
| Gross margin | 50.2% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 27.1% | 22.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 61.7% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.03 | 1.28 |
Performance
AMP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AMP | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.2% | -10.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.5% | -17.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6% | -2.9% |
| Year to date | 0.4% | -8.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.7% | -1.9% |
Technicals
AMP has the stronger structure| Metric | AMP | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.2 | 27.8 |
| ADX (14) | 37.1 | 49.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | -12.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.2% | -8.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.1% | 21.5% |
Risk
AMP is the more resilient| Metric | AMP | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.76 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | -0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.18 | -0.15 |
| Max drawdown | -21.1% | -22.3% |
| Current drawdown | -13.8% | -22% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.2% | 21.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMP or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 24, 2026, scoring 61 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 AMP or BAC the better buy right now?
AMP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 24, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 AMP over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AMP leads Quality by 28 points; AMP leads Momentum by 20 points; AMP leads Risk Resilience by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMP or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply +8.4% upside for AMP and +31.1% for BAC, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AMP. 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, AMP or BAC?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, AMP or BAC?
AMP 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, AMP or BAC?
AMP on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, AMP or BAC?
AMP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AMP on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 AMP more profitable than BAC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 50.2% vs 60.4%; operating margin 27.1% vs 22.4%; ttm roe 61.7% vs 10.7%. AMP leads on two measures and BAC on one measure, 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 AMP's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
AMP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-24 and 2026-10-23. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AMP 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 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMP's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AMP'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 AMP and BAC?
AMP: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. BAC: 2 bullish / 1 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 AMP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AMP 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.