BAC vs MOS Stock Comparison
BAC currently leads MOS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 43. The clearest difference is quality, while MOS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and MOS?
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 The Mosaic Company
BAC leads
BAC leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from MOS. Wall Street currently favors MOS on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BAC, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Bank of America Corporation
The Mosaic Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BAC over MOS, 47 versus 43 as of Oct 31, 2026. BAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while MOS holds the stronger value profile. BAC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MOS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BAC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. BAC lead: Reversed — MOS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BAC now leads by 4.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and The Mosaic 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 MOS 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 28BAC +21
- Risk Resilience60 vs 48BAC +12
- Value57 vs 66MOS +9
- Momentum26 vs 32MOS +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BAC. BAC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; MOS 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: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
BAC'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 MOS 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.
MOS (The Mosaic Company): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 42% against 20.8%.
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
BACBAC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MOSMOS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MOSMOS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
MOSMOS on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
MOSMOS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BAC, analyst targets favor MOS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAC | MOS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +37.1% | MOS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +35.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 10 | 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 | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 34.49% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.200 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $0.880 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | not ranked |
MOS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 34.49% a year against BAC's 8.45%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — 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 | BAC | 47 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs -5.8%; EPS growth -23.8% vs -8.9%; gross margin 60.4% vs 11.5%; operating margin 22.4% vs 1.4% — BAC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MOS | Value 57 vs 66 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -17.3%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -23.5% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | MOS | Target upside 32.5% vs 37.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and MOS 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 BAC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BAC lead: Reversed — MOS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BAC now leads by 4.
- Today
- BAC +4
- 47 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- BAC +5
- 47 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- MOS +1
- 41 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- MOS +1
- 50 vs 51
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when BAC moved ahead of MOS.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.51%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only MOS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.78%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.50%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
MOS 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 -2.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.88%, 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.
- 1MOS closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge.
- 2MOS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BAC'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
BAC leads on balance| Metric | BAC | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | -5.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | -8.9% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 11.5% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 1.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 0.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.51 |
Performance
BAC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -15.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -19.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -20.4% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -23.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -38.9% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 37.5 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 44.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -17.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -23.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 42% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.62 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -1.5 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -44.9% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -41.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 45% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -4.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or MOS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BAC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 47 against MOS's 43. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. MOS 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 MOS the better buy right now?
BAC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BAC over MOS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BAC leads Quality by 21 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; MOS leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or MOS?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +37.1% for MOS, so the Street currently favors MOS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BAC. 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 MOS?
MOS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MOS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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 MOS?
MOS 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 MOS?
MOS on the Momentum factor, by 6 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 MOS?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 MOS?
BAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs 11.5%; operating margin 22.4% vs 1.4%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 0.4%.
Is BAC's lead over MOS getting stronger or weaker?
BAC lead: Reversed — MOS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BAC now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-17, when BAC moved ahead of MOS.
What would change the BAC vs MOS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MOS closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge; MOS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BAC'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 MOS?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. MOS: 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 MOS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and MOS 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.