AQN vs BAC Stock Comparison
AQN currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AQN and BAC?
AQN leads the current stock comparison as Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. vs Bank of America Corporation
AQN leads
AQN leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support AQN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AQN over BAC, 50 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. AQN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while BAC holds the stronger quality profile. AQN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BAC. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AQN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. AQN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. 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 AQN 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.
- Momentum56 vs 26AQN +30
- Quality32 vs 49BAC +17
- Value59 vs 57Even
- Risk Resilience61 vs 60Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor AQN. AQN’s edge is concentrated in momentum; BAC keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum -16
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long 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 3 active signals are unchanged.
AQN's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AQN and BAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AQN (Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, 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
AQNAQN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BACBAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
AQNAQN on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
AQNAQN 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 AQN, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AQN | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.9% | +32.5% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | 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 | AQN | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -15.58% | 8.45% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.606 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.260 | $1.080 |
| Years increased | 2 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (3) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #133 |
BAC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.45% a year against AQN's -15.58%. BAC never reduced its regular dividend in the window; AQN did in 3 years.
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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AQN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 50 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | BAC | revenue growth -31.4% vs -3.3%; EPS growth -98.8% vs -23.8%; TTM ROE 3.2% vs 10.7%; gross margin 45.4% vs 60.4%; operating margin 20.5% vs 22.4% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 59 vs 57 |
| Technicals | AQN | Price vs 50-day 2.1% vs -12.1%; vs 200-day -10.4% vs -7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 9.9% vs 32.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AQN 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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)
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 AQN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28AQN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AQN +3
- 50 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- AQN +8
- 55 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- AQN +2
- 43 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +5
- 45 vs 50
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only AQN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.49%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.51%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
AQN 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.55%, AIQ -5 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 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to AQN's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AQN'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
BAC leads on balance| Metric | AQN | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -31.4% | -3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -98.8% | -23.8% |
| Gross margin | 45.4% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 20.5% | 22.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.2% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.44 | 1.28 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AQN | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.6% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.2% | -6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.7% | -17.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.3% | -3.8% |
| Year to date | -13.2% | -7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.3% | -3.3% |
Technicals
AQN has the stronger structure| Metric | AQN | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.7 | 31.2 |
| ADX (14) | 25.4 | 49.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.1% | -12.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.4% | -7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.1% | 20.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AQN | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.25 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.32 | -0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.4 | -0.32 |
| Max drawdown | -28.4% | -22.3% |
| Current drawdown | -23.5% | -21.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.4% | 21.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AQN or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AQN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 50 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from momentum. BAC 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 AQN or BAC the better buy right now?
AQN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AQN over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AQN leads Momentum by 30 points; BAC leads Quality by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AQN or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply +9.9% upside for AQN and +32.5% for BAC, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AQN. 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, AQN 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, AQN 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, AQN or BAC?
AQN on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, AQN or BAC?
AQN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AQN 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 AQN more profitable than BAC?
BAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 45.4% vs 60.4%; operating margin 20.5% vs 22.4%; ttm roe 3.2% vs 10.7%.
Is AQN's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
AQN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AQN 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 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to AQN's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AQN'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 AQN and BAC?
AQN: 1 bullish / 2 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 AQN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AQN 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.