BAC vs HLNE Stock Comparison
HLNE currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while BAC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and HLNE?
HLNE leads the current stock comparison as Hamilton Lane Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Hamilton Lane Incorporated
HLNE leads
HLNE leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support HLNE, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Hamilton Lane Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HLNE over BAC, 55 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. HLNE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while BAC holds the stronger value profile. HLNE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLNE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. HLNE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Hamilton Lane Incorporated 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 HLNE 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 85HLNE +36
- Value57 vs 35BAC +22
- Momentum26 vs 37HLNE +11
- Risk Resilience60 vs 65HLNE +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor HLNE. HLNE’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; BAC keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 4 active signals are unchanged.
HLNE's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and HLNE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HLNE (Hamilton Lane Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
HLNEHLNE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HLNEHLNE on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
HLNEHLNE on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
HLNEHLNE on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
HLNEHLNE 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 | HLNE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +52.9% | HLNE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +68.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAC | HLNE |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 11.71% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $1.213 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $2.110 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | #65 |
HLNE grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 11.71% 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 HLNE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HLNE | 47 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | HLNE | revenue growth -3.3% vs 42.2%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 22.8%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 31%; gross margin 60.4% vs 69.9%; operating margin 22.4% vs 43.6% |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 57 vs 35 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -8.6%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -15.7% |
| Risk Resilience | HLNE | Risk Resilience 60 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | HLNE | Target upside 32.5% vs 52.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and HLNE 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 moderate at 8 points.
- 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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 HLNE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30HLNE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HLNE +8
- 47 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- HLNE +7
- 47 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- HLNE +14
- 41 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- HLNE +12
- 49 vs 61
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only HLNE
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.97%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.09%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
HLNE 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 -2.04%, 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 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLNE's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3HLNE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate HLNE'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
HLNE leads on balance| Metric | BAC | HLNE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 42.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 22.8% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 69.9% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 43.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 31% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.39 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BAC | HLNE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -4.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -6.7% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -38.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -30.4% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | HLNE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 42.9 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 29.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -8.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -15.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 31.6% |
Risk
HLNE is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | HLNE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -1.1 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -52% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -46.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 41.7% |
| 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 HLNE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HLNE is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 55 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from quality and momentum. BAC is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 HLNE the better buy right now?
HLNE 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HLNE over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HLNE leads Quality by 36 points; BAC leads Value by 22 points; HLNE leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or HLNE?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +52.9% for HLNE, so the Street currently favors HLNE. 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 HLNE?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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 HLNE?
HLNE 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 HLNE?
HLNE on the Momentum factor, by 11 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 HLNE?
HLNE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HLNE on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 HLNE?
HLNE leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs 69.9%; operating margin 22.4% vs 43.6%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 31%.
Is HLNE's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
HLNE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BAC vs HLNE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLNE's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; HLNE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate HLNE's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and HLNE?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. HLNE: 1 bullish / 2 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 HLNE it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and HLNE 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.