BAC vs MS Stock Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Morgan Stanley
BAC leads
BAC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BAC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Morgan Stanley
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BAC over MS, 49 versus 48 as of Sep 2, 2026. BAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while MS holds the stronger quality profile. BAC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MS. 3 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 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Morgan Stanley across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Value30%51 vs 45BAC +6
- Quality30%40 vs 45MS +5
- Momentum25%51 vs 46BAC +5
- Risk Resilience15%59 vs 61Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BAC. BAC’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; MS keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
BAC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and MS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
MS (Morgan Stanley): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 23.7% against 17%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
BACBAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
BACBAC on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MSMS 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 MS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAC | MS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +3.5% | +6.6% | MS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.6% | +33% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 4 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | 49 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | revenue growth 63.2% vs 4%; ROE 11.1% vs 18.1%; gross margin 65.2% vs 59.7%; operating margin 24.7% vs 20.7% — BAC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 51 vs 45 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day 2.8% vs -1.5%; vs 200-day 13.3% vs 12.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 59 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | MS | Target upside 3.5% vs 6.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and MS 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)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 · Apr 20 – Sep 1BAC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BAC +1
- 49 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- BAC +1
- 49 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- BAC +9
- 56 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +6
- 56 vs 50
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 9 when BAC moved ahead of MS.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.00%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.89%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 +1.6%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.99%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1MS closes the Value gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge.
- 2MS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3BAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 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 | MS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 63.2% | 4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.9% | 0.6% |
| Gross margin | 65.2% | 59.7% |
| Operating margin | 24.7% | 20.7% |
| Return on equity | 11.1% | 18.1% |
| Debt to equity | 2.43 | 4.75 |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | MS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.5 | 47.1 |
| ADX (14) | 24.1 | 12.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.8% | -1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.3% | 12.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17% | 23.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BAC | MS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 1.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.88 | 1.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.24 | 1.83 |
| Max drawdown | -18.4% | -19.3% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -6.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.4% | 28% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or MS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BAC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 49 against MS's 48. The edge comes from value and momentum. MS is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 MS the better buy right now?
BAC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 MS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. BAC leads Value by 6 points; MS leads Quality by 5 points; BAC leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or MS?
Analyst price targets imply +3.5% upside for BAC and +6.6% for MS, so the Street currently favors MS. 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 MS?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 MS?
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 MS?
BAC on the Momentum factor, by 5 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 MS?
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. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BAC more profitable than MS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 65.2% vs 59.7%; operating margin 24.7% vs 20.7%; roe 11.1% vs 18.1%. BAC leads on two measures and MS 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 BAC's lead over MS getting stronger or weaker?
BAC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-09, when BAC moved ahead of MS.
What would change the BAC vs MS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MS closes the Value gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge; MS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; BAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 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 MS?
BAC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 MS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and MS with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.