BAC vs NSSC Stock Comparison
NSSC currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and NSSC?
NSSC leads the current stock comparison as Napco Security Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Napco Security Technologies, Inc.
NSSC leads
NSSC leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support NSSC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Napco Security Technologies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NSSC over BAC, 68 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. NSSC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while BAC holds the stronger value profile. NSSC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NSSC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. NSSC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Napco Security Technologies, Inc. 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 NSSC 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.
- Momentum26 vs 80NSSC +54
- Quality49 vs 80NSSC +31
- Value57 vs 44BAC +13
- Risk Resilience60 vs 69NSSC +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor NSSC. NSSC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; BAC 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
NSSC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and NSSC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NSSC (Napco Security Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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
NSSCNSSC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NSSCNSSC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
NSSCNSSC on the Momentum factor, by 54 points.
Lower downside
NSSCNSSC on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 | NSSC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +32.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NSSC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NSSC | 47 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | NSSCon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 13.5%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 51%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 23.6%; gross margin 60.4% vs 59.2%; operating margin 22.4% vs 22.6% — NSSC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 57 vs 44 |
| Technicals | NSSC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs 8%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs 1.3% |
| Risk Resilience | NSSC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 32.5% vs 32.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and NSSC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 NSSC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28NSSC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NSSC +21
- 47 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- NSSC +18
- 47 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- NSSC +15
- 41 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 28 when NSSC 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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BAC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.51%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NSSC
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.44%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
NSSC 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 -2.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.58%, 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.
- 1BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 54 points behind, the largest single contributor to NSSC's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3NSSC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
NSSC leads on balance| Metric | BAC | NSSC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 13.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 51% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 59.2% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 22.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 23.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.03 |
Performance
NSSC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | NSSC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 6.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | 11.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | 9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -12.2% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -4.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -10% |
Technicals
NSSC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | NSSC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 78.9 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 25.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | 8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | 1.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 29.2% |
Risk
NSSC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | NSSC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -0.2 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -26% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -16% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 40.3% |
| 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 NSSC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NSSC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 68 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from momentum and quality. BAC 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 NSSC the better buy right now?
NSSC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NSSC over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NSSC leads Momentum by 54 points; NSSC leads Quality by 31 points; BAC leads Value by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or NSSC?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +32.1% for NSSC. 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 NSSC?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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 NSSC?
NSSC 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 NSSC?
NSSC on the Momentum factor, by 54 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 NSSC?
NSSC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NSSC on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 NSSC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 59.2%; operating margin 22.4% vs 22.6%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 23.6%. Each name leads 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 NSSC's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
NSSC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 21 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-28, when NSSC moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs NSSC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 54 points behind, the largest single contributor to NSSC's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; NSSC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 NSSC?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. NSSC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 NSSC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and NSSC 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.