BAC vs KGC Stock Comparison
KGC currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between BAC and KGC?
KGC leads the current stock comparison as Kinross Gold Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Kinross Gold Corporation
KGC leads
KGC leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Competitive: 2 of 6 evidence groups support KGC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Kinross Gold Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KGC over BAC, 62 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. KGC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. KGC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KGC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. KGC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Kinross Gold Corporation 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 KGC 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 89KGC +40
- Momentum24 vs 39KGC +15
- Risk Resilience58 vs 55Even
- Value57 vs 56Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor KGC. KGC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
KGC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and KGC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KGC (Kinross Gold Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on 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
KGCKGC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
KGCKGC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
KGCKGC on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
KGCKGC 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 | KGC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +30.5% | +56.9% | KGC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +58.9% | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAC | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 15.81% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.060 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $0.125 |
| Years increased | 5 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #133 | not ranked |
KGC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.81% a year against BAC's 8.45%. BAC never reduced its regular dividend in the window; KGC did in 1 year.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KGC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KGC | 46 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -3.3% vs -8.1%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 35.7%; gross margin 60.4% vs 53.6%; operating margin 22.4% vs 50.1% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 57 vs 56 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -13.2% vs -13%; vs 200-day -8.1% vs -19% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 58 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | KGC | Target upside 30.5% vs 56.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and KGC 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 KGC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20KGC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KGC +16
- 46 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- KGC +19
- 41 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- KGC +17
- 40 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- KGC +16
- 54 vs 70
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 / 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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only KGC
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.58%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.03%)
- 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.
KGC 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.76%, 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.
- 1BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to KGC's edge.
- 2BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3KGC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
Split| Metric | BAC | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | -8.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 53.6% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 50.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 35.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.08 |
Performance
BAC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | -17.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.5% | -2.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | -26.3% |
| Year to date | -7.9% | -16.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.4% | -13% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.5 | 46.1 |
| ADX (14) | 48.6 | 27.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.2% | -13% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.1% | -19% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.8% | 57.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BAC | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 1.85 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.16 | 0.13 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -41.6% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 54.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or KGC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KGC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against BAC's 46. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 KGC the better buy right now?
KGC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 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 KGC over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KGC leads Quality by 40 points; KGC leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or KGC?
Analyst price targets imply +30.5% upside for BAC and +56.9% for KGC, so the Street currently favors KGC. 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 KGC?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 KGC?
KGC 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 KGC?
KGC on the Momentum factor, by 15 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 KGC?
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 KGC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 53.6%; operating margin 22.4% vs 50.1%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 35.7%. BAC leads on one measure and KGC 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 KGC's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
KGC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BAC vs KGC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to KGC's edge; BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; KGC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 KGC?
BAC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. KGC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 KGC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and KGC 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.