BAC vs GFS Stock Comparison
Compare BAC vs GFS 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 GFS?
BAC and GFS 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 GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.
BAC and GFS are effectively level
BAC and GFS are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Bank of America Corporation
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate BAC and GFS as of Oct 31, 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 GLOBALFOUNDRIES 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 GFS 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 42BAC +18
- Momentum26 vs 33GFS +7
- Value57 vs 63GFS +6
- Quality49 vs 46Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
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 5 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and GFS 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
GFSGFS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GFSGFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
GFSGFS on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
GFSGFS 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 | GFS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +88.4% | GFS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +112.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 13 | 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 | 47 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 9.3%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 57.9%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 6.1%; gross margin 60.4% vs 27.4%; operating margin 22.4% vs 11.6% — BAC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GFS | Value 57 vs 63 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -10.2%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -16.4% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | GFS | Target upside 32.5% vs 88.4% |
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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30GFS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 47 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- BAC +1
- 47 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- GFS +12
- 41 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +4
- 49 vs 45
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when BAC moved ahead of GFS.
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%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
Only GFS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (18.24%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.21%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
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 -8.62%, 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
BAC leads on balance| Metric | BAC | GFS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 9.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 57.9% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 27.4% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 11.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 6.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.14 |
Performance
GFS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | GFS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -7.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -26.5% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | 32% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | 30.5% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | GFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 40.9 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 12.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -10.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -16.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 51.7% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | GFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 2.2 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | 1.15 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -52.5% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -48.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 60.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or GFS?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +88.4% for GFS, so the Street currently favors GFS. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BAC or GFS?
GFS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 GFS?
GFS 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 GFS?
GFS on the Momentum factor, by 7 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 GFS?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 GFS?
BAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs 27.4%; operating margin 22.4% vs 11.6%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 6.1%.
What do the current signals say about BAC and GFS?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. GFS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on BAC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GFS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and GFS 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.