BAC vs SNA Stock Comparison
SNA currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between BAC and SNA?
SNA leads the current stock comparison as Snap-on Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Snap-on Incorporated
SNA leads
SNA leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support SNA, and its lead is narrowing.
Bank of America Corporation
Snap-on Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SNA over BAC, 58 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. SNA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. SNA 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 SNA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. SNA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Snap-on Incorporated 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 SNA 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.
- Quality49 vs 67SNA +18
- Risk Resilience60 vs 76SNA +16
- Momentum26 vs 37SNA +11
- Value57 vs 57Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor SNA. SNA’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 3 active signals are unchanged.
SNA's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and SNA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SNA (Snap-on Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on 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
SNASNA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SNASNA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
SNASNA on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
SNASNA 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 SNA, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAC | SNA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +21.9% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +23.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 4 | 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 | SNA |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 14.66% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $4.470 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $8.860 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | #41 |
SNA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 14.66% 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 SNA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SNA | 47 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | SNAon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 3.8%; EPS growth -23.8% vs -6.5%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 16.8%; gross margin 60.4% vs 51.2%; operating margin 22.4% vs 23.2% — SNA takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 57 vs 57 |
| Technicals | SNA | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -4.7%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -6.3% |
| Risk Resilience | SNA | Risk Resilience 60 vs 76 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 32.5% vs 21.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and SNA 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 SNA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30SNA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SNA +11
- 47 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- SNA +9
- 47 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- SNA +15
- 41 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- SNA +6
- 49 vs 55
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when SNA 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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.51%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only SNA
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.95%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 -0.82%, 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 Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to SNA's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SNA starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate SNA'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
SNA leads on balance| Metric | BAC | SNA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 3.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | -6.5% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 51.2% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 23.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 16.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.21 |
Performance
SNA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | SNA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -12.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -6% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | 3.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | 3.4% |
Technicals
SNA has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | SNA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 44.8 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 29.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -4.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -6.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 16.8% |
Risk
SNA is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | SNA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 0.08 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | 0.13 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -15.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 18.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or SNA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SNA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 58 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 SNA the better buy right now?
SNA 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 SNA over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SNA leads Quality by 18 points; SNA leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; SNA leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or SNA?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +21.9% for SNA, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SNA. 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 SNA?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 SNA?
SNA 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 SNA?
SNA on the Momentum factor, by 11 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 SNA?
SNA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SNA 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 SNA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 51.2%; operating margin 22.4% vs 23.2%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 16.8%. BAC leads on one measure and SNA on two measures, 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 SNA's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
SNA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when SNA moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs SNA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to SNA's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; SNA starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate SNA's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and SNA?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. SNA: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on BAC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SNA it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and SNA 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.