BAC vs USB Stock Comparison
Compare BAC and USB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BAC and USB?
USB leads the current stock comparison as U.S. Bancorp, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs U.S. Bancorp
USB leads
USB leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support USB, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
U.S. Bancorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USB over BAC, 57 versus 49 as of Sep 6, 2026. USB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. USB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor USB today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. USB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and U.S. Bancorp across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare BAC and USB 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 Resilience15%59 vs 77USB +18
- Quality30%38 vs 50USB +12
- Value30%51 vs 56USB +5
- Momentum25%55 vs 54Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor USB. USB’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
USB's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and USB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
USB (U.S. Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
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
USBUSB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
USBUSB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
USBUSB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
USBUSB on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
USBUSB 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 | USB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4% | +7% | USB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.6% | +22.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 15 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor USB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | USB | 49 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | USB | EPS growth 8.9% vs 14.4%; TTM ROE 11.1% vs 12.5%; gross margin 59.3% vs 63.8%; operating margin 22.5% vs 23.9% |
| Valuation | USB | Value 51 vs 56 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day 1.7% vs 0.5%; vs 200-day 14.2% vs 11.7% |
| Risk Resilience | USB | Risk Resilience 59 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | USB | Target upside 4% vs 7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and USB and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 USB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5USB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USB +8
- 49 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- USB +2
- 49 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- USB +7
- 55 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- USB +6
- 56 vs 62
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.30%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
USB 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 -0.57%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.25%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to USB's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3USB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
USB leads on balance| Metric | BAC | USB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.1% | 0.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.9% | 14.4% |
| Gross margin | 59.3% | 63.8% |
| Operating margin | 22.5% | 23.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.1% | 12.5% |
| Debt to equity | 2.43 | 1.42 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BAC | USB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.6% | 1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.8% | -0.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.4% | 13.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.7% | 21% |
| Year to date | 14% | 18.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.2% | 30.6% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | USB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.3 | 41 |
| ADX (14) | 21.9 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.7% | 0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.2% | 11.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.3% | 18.6% |
Risk
USB is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | USB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.72 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.93 | 1.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.3 | 1.55 |
| Max drawdown | -18.4% | -16.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3.3% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.4% | 22.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or USB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, USB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 57 against BAC's 49. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 USB the better buy right now?
USB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor USB over BAC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. USB leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; USB leads Quality by 12 points; USB 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 USB?
Analyst price targets imply +4% upside for BAC and +7% for USB, so the Street currently favors USB. 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 USB?
USB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. USB 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 USB?
USB 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 USB?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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 USB?
USB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. USB on Risk Resilience, by 18 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BAC more profitable than USB?
USB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 59.3% vs 63.8%; operating margin 22.5% vs 23.9%; ttm roe 11.1% vs 12.5%.
Is USB's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
USB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BAC vs USB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to USB's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; USB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about BAC and USB?
BAC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. USB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 USB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and USB with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.