BAC vs PINS Stock Comparison
PINS currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and PINS?
PINS leads the current stock comparison as Pinterest, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Pinterest, Inc.
PINS leads
PINS leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PINS, and its lead is narrowing.
Bank of America Corporation
Pinterest, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PINS over BAC, 58 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. PINS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while BAC holds the stronger value profile. PINS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PINS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. PINS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Pinterest, 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 PINS 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 63PINS +37
- Quality49 vs 60PINS +11
- Value57 vs 52BAC +5
- Risk Resilience60 vs 59Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PINS. PINS’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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +20
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.04%)
PINS's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and PINS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PINS (Pinterest, 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
PINSPINS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PINSPINS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
PINSPINS on the Momentum factor, by 37 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
PINSPINS 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 | PINS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +45.1% | PINS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +35.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 14 | 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 PINS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PINS | 47 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | PINSon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 17.1%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 33.3%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 6.5%; gross margin 60.4% vs 79.5%; operating margin 22.4% vs 6% — PINS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 57 vs 52 |
| Technicals | PINS | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -6.9%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs 0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | PINS | Target upside 32.5% vs 45.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and PINS 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 moderate at 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 PINS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28PINS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PINS +11
- 47 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- PINS +15
- 47 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- PINS +16
- 41 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- PINS +6
- 50 vs 56
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when PINS 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%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
Only PINS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.04%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.09%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.81%, AIQ +5 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 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to PINS's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3PINS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate PINS'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
PINS leads on balance| Metric | BAC | PINS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 17.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 33.3% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 79.5% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 6.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.41 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BAC | PINS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -8.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | 10.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -14.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | 6% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -19.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -38.4% |
Technicals
PINS has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | PINS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 52.4 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 29.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -6.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | 0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 45.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BAC | PINS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -0.67 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -0.75 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -54.2% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 53.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or PINS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PINS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 58 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 PINS the better buy right now?
PINS 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PINS over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PINS leads Momentum by 37 points; PINS leads Quality by 11 points; BAC leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or PINS?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +45.1% for PINS, so the Street currently favors PINS. 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 PINS?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC 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 PINS?
PINS 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 PINS?
PINS on the Momentum factor, by 37 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 PINS?
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. 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 PINS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 79.5%; operating margin 22.4% vs 6%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 6.5%. BAC leads on two measures and PINS 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 PINS's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
PINS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when PINS moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs PINS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to PINS's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; PINS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate PINS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and PINS?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. PINS: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on BAC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PINS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and PINS 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.