BAC vs JBGS Stock Comparison
BAC currently leads JBGS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while JBGS has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and JBGS?
BAC leads the current stock comparison as Bank of America Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs JBG SMITH Properties
BAC leads
BAC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BAC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
JBG SMITH Properties
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BAC over JBGS, 46 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. BAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while JBGS holds the stronger momentum profile. BAC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BAC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. BAC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and JBG SMITH Properties 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 JBGS 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 9BAC +40
- Momentum24 vs 59JBGS +35
- Value57 vs 65JBGS +8
- Risk Resilience58 vs 52BAC +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BAC. BAC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; JBGS keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
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 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
BAC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and JBGS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
JBGS (JBG SMITH Properties): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 31.6% against 21.8%.
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
BACBAC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BACBAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JBGSJBGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
JBGSJBGS on the Momentum factor, by 35 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
BACBAC 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 | JBGS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +30.5% | +16.7% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Sell | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAC | JBGS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | -4.90% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.900 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $0.700 |
| Years increased | 5 | 1 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (2) |
| Cohort rank | #133 | not ranked |
BAC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.45% a year against JBGS's -4.90%. BAC never reduced its regular dividend in the window; JBGS did in 2 years. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and REITs — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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 BAC. 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 | 46 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 1.4%; EPS growth -23.8% vs -221.9%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs -13.3%; gross margin 60.4% vs 20.3% — BAC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JBGS | Value 57 vs 65 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -13.2% vs -5.3%; vs 200-day -8.1% vs -22.5% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 58 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 30.5% vs 16.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and JBGS 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 BAC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BAC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BAC +1
- 46 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- JBGS +2
- 41 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- BAC +4
- 40 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +8
- 54 vs 46
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when BAC moved ahead of JBGS.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BAC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.14%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only JBGS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (25.35%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
BAC 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 +0.28%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.46%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1JBGS closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge.
- 2JBGS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate BAC'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 | JBGS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 1.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | -221.9% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 20.3% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 0.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | -13.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 2.41 |
Performance
BAC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | JBGS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.5% | -23.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | -29.6% |
| Year to date | -7.9% | -35.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.4% | -45.9% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | JBGS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.5 | 70.1 |
| ADX (14) | 48.6 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.2% | -5.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.1% | -22.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.8% | 31.6% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | JBGS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 0.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | -1.8 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.16 | -2.2 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -53.6% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -49.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 33.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or JBGS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BAC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 46 against JBGS's 45. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. JBGS is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 JBGS the better buy right now?
BAC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BAC over JBGS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BAC leads Quality by 40 points; JBGS leads Momentum by 35 points; JBGS leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or JBGS?
Analyst price targets imply +30.5% upside for BAC and +16.7% for JBGS, so the Street currently favors BAC. 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 JBGS?
JBGS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JBGS 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 JBGS?
BAC 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 JBGS?
JBGS on the Momentum factor, by 35 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 JBGS?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 JBGS?
BAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs 20.3%; operating margin 22.4% vs 0.3%; ttm roe 10.7% vs -13.3%.
Is BAC's lead over JBGS getting stronger or weaker?
BAC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-17, when BAC moved ahead of JBGS.
What would change the BAC vs JBGS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JBGS closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge; JBGS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate BAC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and JBGS?
BAC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. JBGS: 1 bullish / 3 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 JBGS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and JBGS 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.