BAC vs OMCL Stock Comparison
OMCL currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between BAC and OMCL?
OMCL leads the current stock comparison as Omnicell, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Omnicell, Inc.
OMCL leads
OMCL leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support OMCL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Omnicell, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors OMCL over BAC, 58 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. OMCL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. OMCL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor OMCL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. OMCL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Omnicell, 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 OMCL 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 60OMCL +34
- Value57 vs 62OMCL +5
- Risk Resilience60 vs 64OMCL +4
- Quality49 vs 51Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor OMCL. OMCL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
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 4 active signals are unchanged.
OMCL's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and OMCL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
OMCL (Omnicell, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals.
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
OMCLOMCL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
OMCLOMCL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
OMCLOMCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
OMCLOMCL on the Momentum factor, by 34 points.
Lower downside
OMCLOMCL on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
OMCLOMCL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BAC | OMCL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +56.9% | OMCL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +26.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor OMCL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | OMCL | 47 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | EPS growth -23.8% vs 112%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 3.1%; gross margin 60.4% vs 44.8%; operating margin 22.4% vs 4.7% — BAC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | OMCL | Value 57 vs 62 |
| Technicals | OMCL | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs 6%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -8.2% |
| Risk Resilience | OMCL | Risk Resilience 60 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | OMCL | Target upside 32.5% vs 56.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and OMCL 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 moderate at 11 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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)
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 OMCL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30OMCL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- OMCL +11
- 47 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- OMCL +15
- 47 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- OMCL +21
- 41 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +1
- 49 vs 48
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when OMCL 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%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only OMCL
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.32%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.50%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
OMCL 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 -0.62%, 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 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to OMCL's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3OMCL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate OMCL'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 | OMCL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 0.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 112% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 44.8% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 4.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 3.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.15 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BAC | OMCL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | 5.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -16.6% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -20.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | 15.6% |
Technicals
OMCL has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | OMCL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 23.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | 6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -8.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 30.9% |
Risk
OMCL is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | OMCL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | 0.8 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -37.3% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -30% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 50.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or OMCL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, OMCL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 58 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 OMCL the better buy right now?
OMCL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 OMCL over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. OMCL leads Momentum by 34 points; OMCL leads Value by 5 points; OMCL leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or OMCL?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +56.9% for OMCL, so the Street currently favors OMCL. 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 OMCL?
OMCL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OMCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 OMCL?
OMCL 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 OMCL?
OMCL on the Momentum factor, by 34 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 OMCL?
OMCL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. OMCL on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 OMCL?
BAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs 44.8%; operating margin 22.4% vs 4.7%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 3.1%.
Is OMCL's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
OMCL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when OMCL moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs OMCL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to OMCL's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; OMCL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate OMCL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and OMCL?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. OMCL: 1 bullish / 1 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 OMCL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and OMCL 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.