BAC vs CTRA Stock Comparison
CTRA currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while BAC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and CTRA?
CTRA leads the current stock comparison as Coterra Energy Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Coterra Energy Inc.
CTRA leads
CTRA leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CTRA, and its lead is narrowing.
Bank of America Corporation
Coterra Energy Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CTRA over BAC, 49 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. CTRA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while BAC holds the stronger value profile. CTRA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BAC. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTRA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CTRA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Coterra Energy 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 CTRA 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.
- Value57 vs 42BAC +15
- Risk Resilience60 vs 52BAC +8
- Quality49 vs 55CTRA +6
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CTRA. CTRA’s edge is concentrated in quality; BAC keeps a meaningful value 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
CTRA's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and CTRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CTRA (Coterra Energy Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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
CTRACTRA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CTRACTRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 CTRA, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAC | CTRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +29% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 1 | 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 | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 17.08% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.400 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $0.880 |
| Years increased | 5 | — |
| No cut in window | Yes | — |
| Cohort rank | #133 | not ranked |
CTRA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 17.08% a year against BAC's 8.45%.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTRA. 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 | 47 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | CTRAon balance | EPS growth -23.8% vs 27.1%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 11.3%; gross margin 60.4% vs 39%; operating margin 22.4% vs 31.1% — CTRA takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 57 vs 42 |
| Technicals | CTRA | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -1.7%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs 18.8% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 32.5% vs 29% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and CTRA 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 CTRA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CTRA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CTRA +2
- 47 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- CTRA +2
- 47 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- CTRA +8
- 41 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +1
- 50 vs 49
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when CTRA moved ahead of BAC.
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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.51%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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).
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 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTRA's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CTRA starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate CTRA's advantage entirely.
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
CTRA leads on balance| Metric | BAC | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | -0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 27.1% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 39% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 31.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 11.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.23 |
Performance
CTRA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -8.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | 6.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | 33.5% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | 23.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | 26.8% |
Technicals
CTRA has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 19.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | 18.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 44.4% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | -0.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 1.71 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | 2.35 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -14.9% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -10.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 32% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or CTRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CTRA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 49 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from 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 BAC or CTRA the better buy right now?
CTRA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CTRA over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BAC leads Value by 15 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; CTRA leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or CTRA?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +29% for CTRA, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CTRA. 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 CTRA?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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 CTRA?
CTRA 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 CTRA?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 CTRA?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 CTRA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 39%; operating margin 22.4% vs 31.1%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 11.3%. BAC leads on one measure and CTRA 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 CTRA's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
CTRA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when CTRA moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs CTRA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTRA's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CTRA starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate CTRA's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and CTRA?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. CTRA: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on BAC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and CTRA 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.