BAC vs SQM Stock Comparison
SQM currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between BAC and SQM?
SQM leads the current stock comparison as Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.
SQM leads
SQM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support SQM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SQM over BAC, 51 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. SQM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. SQM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SQM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. SQM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. 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 SQM 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 60SQM +11
- Risk Resilience60 vs 67SQM +7
- Value57 vs 54Even
- Momentum26 vs 26Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor SQM. SQM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
SQM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and SQM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SQM (Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on technicals.
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
SQMSQM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SQMSQM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SQMSQM on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
SQMSQM 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 | SQM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +77.3% | SQM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +24.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAC | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | -23.08% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.446 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $0.120 |
| Years increased | 5 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (3) |
| Cohort rank | #133 | not ranked |
BAC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.45% a year against SQM's -23.08%. BAC never reduced its regular dividend in the window; SQM did in 3 years. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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 SQM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SQM | 47 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | SQMon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 40.3%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 80.5%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 23.6%; gross margin 60.4% vs 42%; operating margin 22.4% vs 38.8% — SQM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 57 vs 54 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -20.6%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -22.3% |
| Risk Resilience | SQM | Risk Resilience 60 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | SQM | Target upside 32.5% vs 77.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and SQM 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 SQM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28SQM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SQM +4
- 47 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- SQM +4
- 47 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- SQM +9
- 41 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- SQM +6
- 50 vs 56
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when SQM 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%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only SQM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.25%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
SQM 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 -3.05%, 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 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to SQM's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SQM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate SQM'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
SQM leads on balance| Metric | BAC | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 40.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 80.5% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 42% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 38.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 23.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.84 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BAC | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -13.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -35.2% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -14.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | 29.4% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 30.8 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 40.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -20.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -22.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 33% |
Risk
SQM is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | 1.31 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -40.9% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -38.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 47.5% |
| 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 SQM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SQM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 51 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 SQM the better buy right now?
SQM 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 AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SQM over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SQM leads Quality by 11 points; SQM leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or SQM?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +77.3% for SQM, so the Street currently favors SQM. 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 SQM?
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 SQM?
SQM 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 SQM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 SQM?
SQM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SQM on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 SQM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 42%; operating margin 22.4% vs 38.8%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 23.6%. BAC leads on one measure and SQM 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 SQM's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
SQM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 4 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when SQM moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs SQM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to SQM's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; SQM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate SQM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and SQM?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. SQM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 SQM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and SQM 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.