BAC vs EME Stock Comparison
EME currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while BAC has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and EME?
EME leads the current stock comparison as EMCOR Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs EMCOR Group, Inc.
EME leads
EME leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 33 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EME, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
EMCOR Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EME over BAC, 52 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. EME's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while BAC holds the stronger momentum profile. EME also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EME today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 33 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and EMCOR 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 EME 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.
- Quality49 vs 77EME +28
- Momentum26 vs 8BAC +18
- Risk Resilience60 vs 64EME +4
- Value57 vs 59Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EME. EME’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; BAC 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
EME's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and EME both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EME (EMCOR Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
EMEEME on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EMEEME on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
BACBAC on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
EMEEME on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
EMEEME 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 | BAC | EME | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +53.4% | EME has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +38.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAC | EME |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 25.59% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.320 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $1.000 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | #2 |
EME grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 25.59% a year against BAC's 8.45%. 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EME. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EME | 47 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | EMEon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 11.4%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 30.8%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 38.4%; gross margin 60.4% vs 19.7%; operating margin 22.4% vs 10.2% — EME takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 57 vs 59 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -9.1%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -13.2% |
| Risk Resilience | EME | Risk Resilience 60 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | EME | Target upside 32.5% vs 53.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and EME 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 EME.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 33 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EME +5
- 47 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- EME +5
- 47 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- EME +33
- 41 vs 74
- 90 sessions ago
- EME +5
- 50 vs 55
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when EME 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
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only EME
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.57%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.91%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
EME 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.
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 -1.42%, 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 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to EME's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3EME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 28 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate EME'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
EME leads on balance| Metric | BAC | EME |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 11.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 30.8% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 19.7% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 10.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 38.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0 |
Performance
BAC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | EME |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -10.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -15.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -18.6% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | 10.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -7.5% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | EME |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 22.9 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 23 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -9.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -13.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 42.8% |
Risk
EME is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | EME |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.92 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -0.12 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -31.4% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -28.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 45.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or EME?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EME is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. BAC 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 EME the better buy right now?
EME carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EME over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EME leads Quality by 28 points; BAC leads Momentum by 18 points; EME leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or EME?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +53.4% for EME, so the Street currently favors EME. 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, BAC or EME?
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, BAC or EME?
EME 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 EME?
BAC on the Momentum factor, by 18 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 EME?
EME is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EME on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 EME?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 19.7%; operating margin 22.4% vs 10.2%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 38.4%. BAC leads on two measures and EME 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 EME's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 33 to 5 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-08, when EME moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs EME verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to EME's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; EME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 28 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate EME's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and EME?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. EME: 1 bullish / 4 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 EME it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and EME 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.