BAC vs LUV Stock Comparison
LUV currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and LUV?
LUV leads the current stock comparison as Southwest Airlines Co., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Southwest Airlines Co.
LUV leads
LUV leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LUV, and its lead is narrowing.
Bank of America Corporation
Southwest Airlines Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LUV over BAC, 51 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. LUV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while BAC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. LUV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LUV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. LUV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Southwest Airlines Co. 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 LUV 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.
- Momentum24 vs 33LUV +9
- Risk Resilience58 vs 50BAC +8
- Quality49 vs 54LUV +5
- Value57 vs 62LUV +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LUV. LUV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; BAC keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
LUV's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and LUV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LUV (Southwest Airlines Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
LUVLUV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LUVLUV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LUVLUV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
LUVLUV on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BAC | LUV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +30.5% | +30.6% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +55.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAC | LUV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 31.95% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.180 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $0.720 |
| Years increased | 5 | — |
| No cut in window | Yes | — |
| Cohort rank | #133 | not ranked |
LUV grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 31.95% a year against BAC's 8.45%.
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 LUV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LUV | 46 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | LUVon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 16.3%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 6.7%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 11.3%; gross margin 60.4% vs 61%; operating margin 22.4% vs 3.5% — LUV takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LUV | Value 57 vs 62 |
| Technicals | LUV | Price vs 50-day -13.2% vs -2.5%; vs 200-day -8.1% vs -8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 58 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 30.5% vs 30.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and LUV 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 LUV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LUV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LUV +5
- 46 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- LUV +10
- 41 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- LUV +18
- 40 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +4
- 54 vs 50
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when LUV 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 / 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
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only LUV
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.33%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bearish Crossover.
BAC is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.58%, AIQ +2 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 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to LUV's edge.
- 2BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3LUV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate LUV'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
LUV leads on balance| Metric | BAC | LUV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 16.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 6.7% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 61% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 3.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 11.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.97 |
Performance
LUV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | LUV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | -5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.5% | -16.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | -3.1% |
| Year to date | -7.9% | -4.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.4% | 19.1% |
Technicals
LUV has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | LUV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.5 | 40.2 |
| ADX (14) | 48.6 | 13.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.2% | -2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.1% | -8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.8% | 31.5% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | LUV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 1.62 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.16 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -33.8% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -27.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 44.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or LUV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LUV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 51 against BAC's 46. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 LUV the better buy right now?
LUV 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LUV over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LUV leads Momentum by 9 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; LUV leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or LUV?
Analyst price targets imply +30.5% upside for BAC and +30.6% for LUV. 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 LUV?
LUV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LUV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 LUV?
LUV 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 LUV?
LUV on the Momentum factor, by 9 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 LUV?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 LUV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 61%; operating margin 22.4% vs 3.5%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 11.3%. BAC leads on one measure and LUV 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 LUV's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
LUV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 5 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when LUV moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs LUV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to LUV's edge; BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; LUV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate LUV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and LUV?
BAC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LUV: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 LUV it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and LUV 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.