BAC vs MMM Stock Comparison
MMM currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between BAC and MMM?
MMM leads the current stock comparison as 3M Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs 3M Company
MMM leads
MMM leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MMM, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Bank of America Corporation
3M Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MMM over BAC, 62 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. MMM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. MMM 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 MMM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MMM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and 3M Company 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 MMM 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 75MMM +51
- Quality49 vs 58MMM +9
- Risk Resilience58 vs 61Even
- Value57 vs 56Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MMM. MMM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 +37
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
MMM's lead widened by 9 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and MMM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MMM (3M Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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
MMMMMM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MMMMMM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MMMMMM on the Momentum factor, by 51 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC 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 MMM, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAC | MMM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +30.5% | +5.5% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +39.6% | 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 | MMM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | -9.90% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $4.916 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $2.920 |
| Years increased | 5 | 3 |
| 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 MMM's -9.90%. BAC never reduced its regular dividend in the window; MMM did in 2 years.
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 MMM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MMM | 46 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | MMMon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 7.8%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 45.5%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 77.1%; gross margin 60.4% vs 39.4%; operating margin 22.4% vs 19% — MMM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 57 vs 56 |
| Technicals | MMM | Price vs 50-day -13.2% vs 3%; vs 200-day -8.1% vs 6.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 58 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 30.5% vs 5.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and MMM 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 MMM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MMM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MMM +16
- 46 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- MMM +13
- 41 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- MMM +18
- 40 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- MMM +3
- 54 vs 57
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when MMM 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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish
Only MMM
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
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 +1.97%, AIQ +9 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 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to MMM's edge.
- 2BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MMM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
MMM leads on balance| Metric | BAC | MMM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 7.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 45.5% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 39.4% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 19% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 77.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 4.25 |
Performance
MMM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | MMM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | 5.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.5% | 0.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | 15.4% |
| Year to date | -7.9% | 7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.4% | 13.2% |
Technicals
MMM has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | MMM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.5 | 62.6 |
| ADX (14) | 48.6 | 28.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.2% | 3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.1% | 6.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.8% | 28% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BAC | MMM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.16 | 0.74 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -19.1% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -6.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 26.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or MMM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MMM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against BAC's 46. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 MMM the better buy right now?
MMM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 MMM over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MMM leads Momentum by 51 points; MMM leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or MMM?
Analyst price targets imply +30.5% upside for BAC and +5.5% for MMM, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MMM. 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 MMM?
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 MMM?
MMM 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 MMM?
MMM on the Momentum factor, by 51 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 MMM?
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 MMM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 39.4%; operating margin 22.4% vs 19%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 77.1%. BAC leads on two measures and MMM 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 MMM's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
MMM 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 changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when MMM moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs MMM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to MMM's edge; BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MMM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 MMM?
BAC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MMM: 3 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 MMM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and MMM 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.