AS vs BAC Stock Comparison
AS currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AS and BAC?
AS leads the current stock comparison as Amer Sports, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amer Sports, Inc. vs Bank of America Corporation
AS leads
AS leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amer Sports, Inc.
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AS over BAC, 54 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. AS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while BAC holds the stronger value profile. AS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Amer Sports, 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 AS 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.
- Momentum73 vs 24AS +49
- Value30 vs 57BAC +27
- Quality63 vs 49AS +14
- Risk Resilience49 vs 58BAC +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AS. AS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; BAC keeps a meaningful value 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: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 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.
AS's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AS and BAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AS (Amer Sports, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
ASAS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BACBAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
ASAS on the Momentum factor, by 49 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
ASAS 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 | AS | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +54.5% | +30.5% | AS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +67.8% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AS | 54 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | BAC | revenue growth -16.1% vs -3.3%; EPS growth -37.9% vs -23.8%; TTM ROE 8.7% vs 10.7%; gross margin 59.8% vs 60.4%; operating margin 12.4% vs 22.4% |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 30 vs 57 |
| Technicals | AS | Price vs 50-day 1% vs -13.2%; vs 200-day -11% vs -8.1% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 49 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | AS | Target upside 54.5% vs 30.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AS 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 8 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 AS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AS +8
- 54 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- AS +12
- 53 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- AS +4
- 44 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +15
- 39 vs 54
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (16.33%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
AS 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.41%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to AS's edge.
- 2BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3AS'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
BAC leads on balance| Metric | AS | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -16.1% | -3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -37.9% | -23.8% |
| Gross margin | 59.8% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 12.4% | 22.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.7% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 1.28 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AS | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.8% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.6% | -9.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.8% | -16.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.2% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | -18.8% | -7.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.1% | 0.4% |
Technicals
AS has the stronger structure| Metric | AS | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 77.7 | 25.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.5 | 48.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | -13.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11% | -8.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.7% | 21.8% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | AS | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.49 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.1 | -0.16 |
| Max drawdown | -37.4% | -22.3% |
| Current drawdown | -27.8% | -21.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.7% | 21.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AS or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 54 against BAC's 46. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 AS or BAC the better buy right now?
AS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 AS over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AS leads Momentum by 49 points; BAC leads Value by 27 points; AS leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AS or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply +54.5% upside for AS and +30.5% for BAC, so the Street currently favors AS. 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, AS or BAC?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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, AS 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, AS or BAC?
AS on the Momentum factor, by 49 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, AS or BAC?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 AS more profitable than BAC?
BAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 59.8% vs 60.4%; operating margin 12.4% vs 22.4%; ttm roe 8.7% vs 10.7%.
Is AS's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
AS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AS 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 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to AS's edge; BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; AS'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 AS and BAC?
AS: 2 bullish / 2 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 AS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AS 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.