BAC vs GRAB Stock Comparison
GRAB currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between BAC and GRAB?
GRAB leads the current stock comparison as Grab Holdings Limited, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Grab Holdings Limited
GRAB leads
GRAB leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support GRAB, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Grab Holdings Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GRAB over BAC, 50 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. GRAB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. GRAB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRAB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. GRAB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Grab Holdings Limited 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 GRAB 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 54GRAB +5
- Value57 vs 62GRAB +5
- Risk Resilience60 vs 57Even
- Momentum26 vs 25Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor GRAB. GRAB’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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.
GRAB's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and GRAB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GRAB (Grab Holdings Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, 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
GRABGRAB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GRABGRAB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GRABGRAB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BACBAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GRABGRAB 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 | GRAB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +114.4% | GRAB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +51.6% | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRAB. 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 50 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 4.4%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 85.8%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 9%; gross margin 60.4% vs 43.6%; operating margin 22.4% vs 6.9% — BAC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GRAB | Value 57 vs 62 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -13.5%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -24.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | GRAB | Target upside 32.5% vs 114.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and GRAB 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 3 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)
- 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 GRAB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GRAB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GRAB +3
- 47 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- GRAB +3
- 47 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- GRAB +15
- 41 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- GRAB +7
- 50 vs 57
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when GRAB 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 GRAB
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (16.52%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.93%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.5%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
GRAB 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 -1.81%, 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 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRAB's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3GRAB'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 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate GRAB'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
BAC leads on balance| Metric | BAC | GRAB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 4.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 85.8% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 43.6% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 6.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.3 |
Performance
BAC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | GRAB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -11.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -19.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -28% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -44.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -53% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | GRAB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 29.5 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 23.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -13.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -24.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 36% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BAC | GRAB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.4 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -1.95 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -3.3 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -55.4% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -54.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 38% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or GRAB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GRAB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 50 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 GRAB the better buy right now?
GRAB 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GRAB over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GRAB leads Quality by 5 points; GRAB leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or GRAB?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +114.4% for GRAB, so the Street currently favors GRAB. 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 GRAB?
GRAB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GRAB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 GRAB?
GRAB 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 GRAB?
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 GRAB?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 GRAB?
BAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs 43.6%; operating margin 22.4% vs 6.9%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 9%.
Is GRAB's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
GRAB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 3 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when GRAB moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs GRAB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRAB's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; GRAB'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 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate GRAB's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and GRAB?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. GRAB: 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 GRAB it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and GRAB 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.