BAC vs NTAP Stock Comparison
NTAP currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and NTAP?
NTAP leads the current stock comparison as NetApp, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs NetApp, Inc.
NTAP leads
NTAP leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 27 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support NTAP, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
NetApp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NTAP over BAC, 58 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. NTAP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while BAC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. NTAP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BAC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NTAP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. NTAP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and NetApp, 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 NTAP 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 51NTAP +27
- Quality49 vs 70NTAP +21
- Risk Resilience58 vs 42BAC +16
- Value57 vs 61NTAP +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor NTAP. NTAP’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: 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.
NTAP's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and NTAP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NTAP (NetApp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
NTAPNTAP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NTAPNTAP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NTAPNTAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
NTAPNTAP on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
BACBAC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors NTAP, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAC | NTAP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +30.5% | -5% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +72.7% | 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 | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 1.61% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $1.920 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $2.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | #338 |
BAC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.45% a year against NTAP's 1.61%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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 NTAP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NTAP | 46 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | NTAP | revenue growth -3.3% vs 13.7%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 21.3%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 114.2%; gross margin 60.4% vs 70.7%; operating margin 22.4% vs 24.1% |
| Valuation | NTAP | Value 57 vs 61 |
| Technicals | NTAP | Price vs 50-day -13.2% vs 7.2%; vs 200-day -8.1% vs 44.2% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 58 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 30.5% vs -5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and NTAP 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 NTAP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NTAP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NTAP +12
- 46 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- NTAP +22
- 41 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- NTAP +27
- 40 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- NTAP +13
- 54 vs 67
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NTAP
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.29%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
NTAP 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 +0.28%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.45%, 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 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to NTAP's edge.
- 2BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3NTAP'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 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate NTAP'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
NTAP leads on balance| Metric | BAC | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 13.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 21.3% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 70.7% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 24.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 114.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 2.02 |
Performance
NTAP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -12% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | 8.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.5% | 26.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | 87.8% |
| Year to date | -7.9% | 96.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.4% | 75.9% |
Technicals
NTAP has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.5 | 49.9 |
| ADX (14) | 48.6 | 28 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.2% | 7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.1% | 44.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.8% | 46.5% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 1.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 1.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.16 | 2.4 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -21.2% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -12.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 45.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or NTAP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NTAP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 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 NTAP the better buy right now?
NTAP 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NTAP over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NTAP leads Momentum by 27 points; NTAP leads Quality by 21 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or NTAP?
Analyst price targets imply +30.5% upside for BAC and -5% for NTAP, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NTAP. 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 NTAP?
NTAP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NTAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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 NTAP?
NTAP 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 NTAP?
NTAP on the Momentum factor, by 27 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 NTAP?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 NTAP?
NTAP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs 70.7%; operating margin 22.4% vs 24.1%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 114.2%.
Is NTAP's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
NTAP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BAC vs NTAP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to NTAP's edge; BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; NTAP'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 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate NTAP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and NTAP?
BAC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NTAP: 3 bullish / 1 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 NTAP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and NTAP 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.