BAC vs EXAS Stock Comparison
Compare BAC vs EXAS on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between BAC and EXAS?
BAC and EXAS are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Exact Sciences Corporation
BAC and EXAS are effectively level
BAC and EXAS are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Bank of America Corporation
Exact Sciences Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate BAC and EXAS as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Exact Sciences 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 BAC and EXAS 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 37BAC +20
- Risk Resilience58 vs 67EXAS +9
- Quality49 vs 44BAC +5
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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, 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and EXAS both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EXASEXAS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EXASEXAS on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
BACBAC 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 | EXAS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +30.5% | +0.1% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 46 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | EXASon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 3.2%; EPS growth -23.8% vs -3.5%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs -8.5%; gross margin 60.4% vs 69.7%; operating margin 22.4% vs -6.2% — EXAS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 57 vs 37 |
| Technicals | EXAS | Price vs 50-day -13.2% vs 1.8%; vs 200-day -8.1% vs 41.3% |
| Risk Resilience | EXAS | Risk Resilience 58 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 30.5% vs 0.1% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EXAS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 46 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- EXAS +5
- 41 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- EXAS +6
- 40 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +8
- 54 vs 46
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when BAC moved ahead of EXAS.
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 BAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 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
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 +0.28%, AIQ 0 points).
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
EXAS leads on balance| Metric | BAC | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | -3.5% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 69.7% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | -6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | -8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 1.05 |
Performance
EXAS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.5% | 3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | 100.3% |
| Year to date | -7.9% | 3.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.4% | 133.5% |
Technicals
EXAS has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.5 | 74.1 |
| ADX (14) | 48.6 | 42.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.2% | 1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.1% | 41.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.8% | 4.2% |
Risk
EXAS is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | -0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 3.17 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.16 | 12.67 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -5% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 43.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or EXAS?
Analyst price targets imply +30.5% upside for BAC and +0.1% for EXAS, so the Street currently favors BAC. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BAC or EXAS?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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 EXAS?
EXAS 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 EXAS?
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 EXAS?
EXAS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXAS 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 BAC more profitable than EXAS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 69.7%; operating margin 22.4% vs -6.2%; ttm roe 10.7% vs -8.5%. BAC leads on two measures and EXAS 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.
What do the current signals say about BAC and EXAS?
BAC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. EXAS: No active signals. 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).
Compare BAC and EXAS 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.