BAC vs ITW Stock Comparison
ITW currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and ITW?
ITW leads the current stock comparison as Illinois Tool Works Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Illinois Tool Works Inc.
ITW leads
ITW leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ITW, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ITW over BAC, 62 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. ITW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while BAC holds the stronger value profile. ITW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BAC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ITW today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ITW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Illinois Tool Works 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 ITW 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.
- Momentum26 vs 82ITW +56
- Quality49 vs 60ITW +11
- Value57 vs 46BAC +11
- Risk Resilience60 vs 62Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ITW. ITW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; BAC keeps a meaningful value 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: Risk Resilience +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ITW's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and ITW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ITW (Illinois Tool Works Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 20.8% against 15.2%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
ITWITW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ITWITW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
ITWITW on the Momentum factor, by 56 points.
Lower downside
ITWITW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
BACBAC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ITW, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAC | ITW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +2.5% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +16.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAC | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 7.07% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $4.420 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $6.220 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | #190 |
BAC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.45% a year against ITW's 7.07%. 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ITW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ITW | 47 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | ITWon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 7.1%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 7.1%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 101.7%; gross margin 60.4% vs 44.2%; operating margin 22.4% vs 26.5% — ITW takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 57 vs 46 |
| Technicals | ITW | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs 2.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 32.5% vs 2.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and ITW 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 ITW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ITW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ITW +15
- 47 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- ITW +14
- 47 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- ITW +9
- 41 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- ITW +1
- 50 vs 51
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when ITW 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
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ITW
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
ITW 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 -1.01%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to ITW's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ITW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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
ITW leads on balance| Metric | BAC | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 7.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 7.1% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 44.2% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 26.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 101.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 3.35 |
Performance
ITW leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | 7.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | 3.9% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | 12.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | 12.3% |
Technicals
ITW has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 73.4 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 16.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | 2.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 15.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BAC | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.48 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | 0.75 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -17.9% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -7.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 21.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or ITW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ITW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 ITW the better buy right now?
ITW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 ITW over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ITW leads Momentum by 56 points; ITW leads Quality by 11 points; BAC leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or ITW?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +2.5% for ITW, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ITW. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BAC or ITW?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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 ITW?
ITW 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 ITW?
ITW on the Momentum factor, by 56 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 ITW?
ITW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ITW 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 ITW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 44.2%; operating margin 22.4% vs 26.5%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 101.7%. BAC leads on one measure and ITW on two measures, 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 ITW's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
ITW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 15 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when ITW moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs ITW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to ITW's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ITW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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 ITW?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. ITW: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 ITW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and ITW 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.