BAC vs HTZ Stock Comparison
HTZ currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while BAC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and HTZ?
HTZ leads the current stock comparison as Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
HTZ leads
HTZ leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support HTZ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HTZ over BAC, 55 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. HTZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while BAC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. HTZ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HTZ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. HTZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Hertz Global Holdings, 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 HTZ 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 15BAC +45
- Quality49 vs 76HTZ +27
- Momentum26 vs 40HTZ +14
- Value57 vs 65HTZ +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor HTZ. HTZ’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; BAC keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 -12
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
HTZ's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and HTZ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HTZ (Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
HTZHTZ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HTZHTZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HTZHTZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
HTZHTZ on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 45 points.
Analyst upside
HTZHTZ 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 | HTZ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +57.8% | HTZ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +148.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Sell | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HTZ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HTZ | 47 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | HTZon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 19.6%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 118.9%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 51%; gross margin 60.4% vs 14.1%; operating margin 22.4% vs 2.8% — HTZ takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HTZ | Value 57 vs 65 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -2.7%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -50% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 15 |
| Analyst expectations | HTZ | Target upside 32.5% vs 57.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and HTZ 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 HTZ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28HTZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HTZ +8
- 47 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- HTZ +13
- 47 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- HTZ +21
- 41 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- HTZ +6
- 50 vs 56
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 6 when HTZ 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%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only HTZ
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (92.65%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (9.66%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
HTZ 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.03%, AIQ -3 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 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to HTZ's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3HTZ'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 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate HTZ'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
HTZ leads on balance| Metric | BAC | HTZ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 19.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 118.9% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 14.1% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 2.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 51% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | -33.58 |
Performance
BAC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | HTZ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -8.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | 13.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | 14.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -66.1% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -63% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -63.3% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | HTZ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 47.5 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 24.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -50% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 87.7% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | HTZ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.39 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -0.8 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -80.7% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -75.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 99.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -6.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or HTZ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HTZ 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 risk resilience 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 HTZ the better buy right now?
HTZ 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 HTZ over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BAC leads Risk Resilience by 45 points; HTZ leads Quality by 27 points; HTZ leads Momentum by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or HTZ?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +57.8% for HTZ, so the Street currently favors HTZ. 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 HTZ?
HTZ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HTZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 HTZ?
HTZ 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 HTZ?
HTZ on the Momentum factor, by 14 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 HTZ?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 45 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 HTZ?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 14.1%; operating margin 22.4% vs 2.8%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 51%. BAC leads on two measures and HTZ 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 HTZ's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
HTZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 8 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-06, when HTZ moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs HTZ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to HTZ's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; HTZ'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 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate HTZ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and HTZ?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. HTZ: 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 HTZ it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and HTZ 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.