BAC vs STEM Stock Comparison
STEM currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while BAC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and STEM?
STEM leads the current stock comparison as Stem, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Stem, Inc.
STEM leads
STEM leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support STEM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Stem, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors STEM over BAC, 52 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. STEM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while BAC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. STEM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor STEM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. STEM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Stem, 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 STEM 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.
- Risk Resilience60 vs 20BAC +40
- Quality49 vs 76STEM +27
- Value57 vs 65STEM +8
- Momentum26 vs 25Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor STEM. STEM’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; BAC keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
STEM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and STEM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
STEM (Stem, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
STEMSTEM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
STEMSTEM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
STEMSTEM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 40 points.
Analyst upside
STEMSTEM 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 | STEM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +241.4% | STEM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +85.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor STEM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | STEM | 47 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | STEMon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs 16%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 28.8%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 28.6%; gross margin 60.4% vs 38.2%; operating margin 22.4% vs -30.1% — STEM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | STEM | Value 57 vs 65 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -50.6%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -66.9% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 20 |
| Analyst expectations | STEM | Target upside 32.5% vs 241.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and STEM 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 5 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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 STEM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28STEM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- STEM +5
- 47 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- STEM +5
- 47 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- STEM +14
- 41 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- STEM +6
- 50 vs 56
The lead changed hands 14 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when STEM 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
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only STEM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (89.89%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (13.18%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
STEM 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 -7.11%, 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 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to STEM's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3STEM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate STEM'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
STEM leads on balance| Metric | BAC | STEM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 16% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 28.8% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 38.2% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | -30.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 28.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | -1.36 |
Performance
BAC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | STEM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -22.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -39.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -51.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -73.4% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -80% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -88.8% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | STEM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 9.8 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 35.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -50.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -66.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 86.3% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | STEM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 3.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -2.04 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -3.01 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -89.1% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -89.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 90.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or STEM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, STEM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from quality and value. BAC is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 STEM the better buy right now?
STEM 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor STEM over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BAC leads Risk Resilience by 40 points; STEM leads Quality by 27 points; STEM leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or STEM?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +241.4% for STEM, so the Street currently favors STEM. 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 STEM?
STEM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. STEM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 STEM?
STEM 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 STEM?
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 STEM?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 40 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 STEM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 38.2%; operating margin 22.4% vs -30.1%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 28.6%. BAC leads on two measures and STEM 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 STEM's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
STEM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 5 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 14 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when STEM moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs STEM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to STEM's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; STEM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate STEM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and STEM?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. STEM: 1 bullish / 4 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 STEM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and STEM 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.