BAC vs CG Stock Comparison
BAC currently leads CG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 41. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CG has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and CG?
BAC leads the current stock comparison as Bank of America Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs The Carlyle Group Inc.
BAC leads
BAC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors CG on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BAC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Bank of America Corporation
The Carlyle Group Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BAC over CG, 47 versus 41 as of Oct 31, 2026. BAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CG holds the stronger momentum profile. BAC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CG. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BAC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. BAC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and The Carlyle Group Inc. 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 BAC and CG 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.
- Risk Resilience60 vs 32BAC +28
- Momentum26 vs 46CG +20
- Quality49 vs 36BAC +13
- Value57 vs 45BAC +12
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BAC. BAC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CG keeps a meaningful momentum 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: 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 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 — BAC and CG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CG (The Carlyle Group Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 34% 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
CGCG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
CGCG on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
CGCG 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 CG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAC | CG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +34.6% | CG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +49.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 9 | 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 | BAC | CG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 6.96% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $1.000 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $1.400 |
| Years increased | 5 | 3 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | not ranked |
BAC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.45% a year against CG's 6.96%. 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
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 | 47 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | CGon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 5.1%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 202.7%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 6.1%; gross margin 60.4% vs 70.7%; operating margin 22.4% vs 19.1% — CG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 57 vs 45 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -3.9%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -17.7% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 32 |
| Analyst expectations | CG | Target upside 32.5% vs 34.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and CG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 BAC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BAC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BAC +6
- 47 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- BAC +8
- 47 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- BAC +5
- 41 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +7
- 50 vs 43
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 / 1 neutral
Only BAC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.51%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.51%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
CG 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 -2.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.96%, 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.
- 1CG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge.
- 2CG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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
CG leads on balance| Metric | BAC | CG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 5.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 202.7% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 70.7% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 19.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 6.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 1.98 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BAC | CG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 4.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -13.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -18.3% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -33.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -33.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BAC | CG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 53.9 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 25.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -3.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -17.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 34% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | CG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.48 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -0.98 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -1.5 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -45.9% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -40.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 36.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or CG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BAC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 47 against CG's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CG is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 BAC or CG the better buy right now?
BAC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BAC over CG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BAC leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; CG leads Momentum by 20 points; BAC leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or CG?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +34.6% for CG, so the Street currently favors CG. 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, BAC or CG?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, BAC or CG?
CG 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, BAC or CG?
CG 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, BAC or CG?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 BAC more profitable than CG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 70.7%; operating margin 22.4% vs 19.1%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 6.1%. BAC leads on two measures and CG 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 BAC's lead over CG getting stronger or weaker?
BAC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 BAC vs CG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge; CG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 BAC and CG?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. CG: 1 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 BAC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and CG 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.