BAC vs RGLD Stock Comparison
RGLD currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and RGLD?
RGLD leads the current stock comparison as Royal Gold, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Royal Gold, Inc.
RGLD leads
RGLD leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support RGLD, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Bank of America Corporation
Royal Gold, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RGLD over BAC, 56 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. RGLD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while BAC holds the stronger value profile. RGLD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RGLD today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. RGLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Royal Gold, 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 RGLD 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 58RGLD +32
- Quality49 vs 71RGLD +22
- Value57 vs 36BAC +21
- Risk Resilience60 vs 62Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor RGLD. RGLD’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 +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
RGLD's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and RGLD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RGLD (Royal Gold, 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
RGLDRGLD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RGLDRGLD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
RGLDRGLD on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
RGLDRGLD 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 | RGLD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +34.6% | RGLD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +18.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAC | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 9.95% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $1.120 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $1.800 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | #106 |
RGLD grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.95% a year against BAC's 8.45%. 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 RGLD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RGLD | 47 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | RGLDon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs -4%; EPS growth -23.8% vs -16%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 11.5%; gross margin 60.4% vs 66.8%; operating margin 22.4% vs 63.1% — RGLD takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 57 vs 36 |
| Technicals | RGLD | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -7.3%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs 0.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | RGLD | Target upside 32.5% vs 34.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and RGLD 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 moderate at 9 points.
- 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 RGLD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28RGLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RGLD +9
- 47 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- RGLD +4
- 47 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- RGLD +4
- 41 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- RGLD +15
- 50 vs 65
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.4%, AIQ +2 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 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to RGLD's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3RGLD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
RGLD leads on balance| Metric | BAC | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | -4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | -16% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 66.8% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 63.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 11.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.05 |
Performance
RGLD leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | 2.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | 19.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | 4.7% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | 8.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | 32.6% |
Technicals
RGLD has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 57.9 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 17.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -7.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | 0.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 34.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BAC | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 0.83 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | 1.26 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -38.4% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -20.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 40.9% |
| 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 RGLD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RGLD is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 56 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 RGLD the better buy right now?
RGLD 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 RGLD over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RGLD leads Momentum by 32 points; RGLD leads Quality by 22 points; BAC leads Value by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or RGLD?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +34.6% for RGLD, so the Street currently favors RGLD. 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 RGLD?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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 RGLD?
RGLD 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 RGLD?
RGLD on the Momentum factor, by 32 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 RGLD?
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 RGLD?
RGLD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs 66.8%; operating margin 22.4% vs 63.1%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 11.5%.
Is RGLD's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
RGLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BAC vs RGLD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to RGLD's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; RGLD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 RGLD?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. RGLD: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on BAC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RGLD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and RGLD 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.