BAC vs FNF Stock Comparison
FNF currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 47. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between BAC and FNF?
FNF leads the current stock comparison as Fidelity National Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
FNF leads
FNF leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FNF, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNF over BAC, 60 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. FNF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. FNF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FNF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FNF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. FNF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Fidelity National Financial, 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 FNF 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 80FNF +20
- Momentum26 vs 39FNF +13
- Quality49 vs 61FNF +12
- Value57 vs 67FNF +10
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FNF. FNF’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 -6
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.8%)
FNF's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and FNF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNF (Fidelity National Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on 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
FNFFNF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FNFFNF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNFFNF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
FNFFNF on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
FNFFNF on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BAC | FNF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +32.5% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +16.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAC | FNF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 8.39% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $1.350 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $2.020 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | #137 |
BAC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.45% a year against FNF's 8.39%. 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 FNF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FNF | 47 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | FNFon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 25.7%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 20%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 10.1%; gross margin 60.4% vs 77.9%; operating margin 22.4% vs 13% — FNF takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FNF | Value 57 vs 67 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -18.3% |
| Risk Resilience | FNF | Risk Resilience 60 vs 80 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 32.5% vs 32.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and FNF 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 FNF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28FNF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FNF +13
- 47 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- FNF +16
- 47 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- FNF +15
- 41 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- FNF +6
- 50 vs 56
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when FNF 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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.51%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FNF
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.01%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.8%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
FNF 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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.57%, AIQ -1 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNF's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FNF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 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
FNF leads on balance| Metric | BAC | FNF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 25.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 20% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 77.9% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 13% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 10.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.64 |
Performance
BAC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | FNF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | 1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -24.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -24.9% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -28% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -31.2% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | FNF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 46.2 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 31.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -18.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 20.1% |
Risk
FNF is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | FNF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -1.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -1.87 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -35.1% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -34% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 27.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or FNF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FNF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 FNF the better buy right now?
FNF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 FNF over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FNF leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; FNF leads Momentum by 13 points; FNF leads Quality by 12 points. FNF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by BAC simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or FNF?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +32.5% for FNF. 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 FNF?
FNF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FNF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 FNF?
FNF 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 FNF?
FNF on the Momentum factor, by 13 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 FNF?
FNF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FNF on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 FNF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 77.9%; operating margin 22.4% vs 13%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 10.1%. BAC leads on two measures and FNF 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 FNF's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
FNF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 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 2026-08-19, when FNF moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs FNF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNF's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FNF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; 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 FNF?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FNF: 1 bullish / 3 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 FNF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and FNF 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.