ATI vs BAC Stock Comparison
BAC currently leads ATI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 36. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between ATI 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
ATI Inc. vs Bank of America Corporation
BAC leads
BAC leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from ATI. Wall Street currently favors ATI on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BAC, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
ATI Inc.
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BAC over ATI, 47 versus 36 as of Oct 31, 2026. BAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. BAC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ATI. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BAC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. BAC lead: Reversed — ATI led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BAC now leads by 11.
Compare ATI 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 ATI 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.
- Value27 vs 57BAC +30
- Risk Resilience51 vs 60BAC +9
- Momentum22 vs 26BAC +4
- Quality50 vs 49Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BAC. BAC’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
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 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 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 — ATI 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.
ATI (ATI Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 48.4% against 20.8%.
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
BACBAC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ATIATI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
BACBAC on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
ATIATI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BAC, analyst targets favor ATI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ATI | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +44.8% | +32.5% | ATI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +41.7% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | 36 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | ATIon balance | revenue growth 9.5% vs -3.3%; EPS growth 27.6% vs -23.8%; TTM ROE 26.6% vs 10.7%; gross margin 23.4% vs 60.4%; operating margin 15.3% vs 22.4% — ATI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 27 vs 57 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -13.8% vs -12.1%; vs 200-day -4.4% vs -7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 51 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | ATI | Target upside 44.8% vs 32.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ATI 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 11 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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'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 BAC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30BAC lead: Reversed — ATI led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BAC now leads by 11.
- Today
- BAC +11
- 36 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- BAC +12
- 35 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- ATI +5
- 46 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +8
- 41 vs 49
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when BAC moved ahead of ATI.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ATI
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.09%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
ATI 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.38%, 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.
- 1ATI closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge.
- 2ATI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3BAC'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
ATI leads on balance| Metric | ATI | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.5% | -3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 27.6% | -23.8% |
| Gross margin | 23.4% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 15.3% | 22.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.6% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.17 | 1.28 |
Performance
ATI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ATI | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.5% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.7% | -6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.1% | -17.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 13% | -3.8% |
| Year to date | 44% | -7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 85.4% | -3.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ATI | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.8 | 31.2 |
| ADX (14) | 36.1 | 49.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.8% | -12.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.4% | -7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.4% | 20.8% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | ATI | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.62 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.37 | -0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.14 | -0.32 |
| Max drawdown | -32.3% | -22.3% |
| Current drawdown | -28.7% | -21.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.3% | 21.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ATI or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BAC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 47 against ATI's 36. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. 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 ATI or BAC the better buy right now?
BAC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 BAC over ATI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BAC leads Value by 30 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 9 points; BAC leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ATI or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply +44.8% upside for ATI and +32.5% for BAC, so the Street currently favors ATI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BAC. 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, ATI or BAC?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, ATI or BAC?
ATI 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, ATI or BAC?
BAC on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, ATI 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 ATI more profitable than BAC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 23.4% vs 60.4%; operating margin 15.3% vs 22.4%; ttm roe 26.6% vs 10.7%. ATI 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 BAC's lead over ATI getting stronger or weaker?
BAC lead: Reversed — ATI led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BAC now leads by 11. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-10-17, when BAC moved ahead of ATI.
What would change the ATI vs BAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ATI closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge; ATI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; BAC'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 ATI and BAC?
ATI: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 ATI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ATI 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.