BAC vs VST Stock Comparison
VST currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum, while BAC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and VST?
VST leads the current stock comparison as Vistra Corp., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Vistra Corp.
VST leads
VST leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support VST.
Bank of America Corporation
Vistra Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VST over BAC, 47 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. VST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while BAC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. VST also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VST today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. VST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Vistra Corp. 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 VST 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.
- Momentum24 vs 61VST +37
- Risk Resilience58 vs 30BAC +28
- Value57 vs 45BAC +12
- Quality49 vs 46Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor VST. VST’s edge is concentrated in momentum; BAC keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
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 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VST's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and VST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VST (Vistra Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, fundamentals.
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
VSTVST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BACBAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
VSTVST on the Momentum factor, by 37 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
VSTVST 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 | VST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.5% | +42.3% | VST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +60.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAC | VST |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 10.79% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.540 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $0.902 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | #81 |
VST grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.79% 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 46 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs -13.7%; EPS growth -23.8% vs -73.8%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 41.5%; gross margin 60.4% vs 13%; operating margin 22.4% vs 2.3% — BAC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 57 vs 45 |
| Technicals | VST | Price vs 50-day -12.6% vs 3.1%; vs 200-day -8.1% vs -2.7% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 58 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | VST | Target upside 29.5% vs 42.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and VST 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 VST.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VST +1
- 46 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- VST +8
- 41 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 40 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +2
- 54 vs 52
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when VST 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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.14%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
Only VST
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.36%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.89%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
BAC is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.76%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -4.1%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to VST's edge.
- 2BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3VST starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
BAC leads on balance| Metric | BAC | VST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | -13.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | -73.8% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 13% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 2.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 41.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 3.63 |
Performance
VST leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | VST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -7.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | 7.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.5% | -9.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | -3% |
| Year to date | -7.9% | -6.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.4% | -28.6% |
Technicals
VST has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | VST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.5 | 58.6 |
| ADX (14) | 48.6 | 17.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.6% | 3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.1% | -2.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.8% | 59.2% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | VST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | -0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.16 | -0.61 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -33.1% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -25.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 49.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or VST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VST is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 47 against BAC's 46. The edge comes from momentum. 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 VST the better buy right now?
VST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VST over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VST leads Momentum by 37 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; BAC leads Value by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or VST?
Analyst price targets imply +29.5% upside for BAC and +42.3% for VST, so the Street currently favors VST. 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 VST?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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 VST?
BAC 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 VST?
VST on the Momentum factor, by 37 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 VST?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 VST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 13%; operating margin 22.4% vs 2.3%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 41.5%. BAC leads on two measures and VST 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 VST's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
VST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when VST moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the BAC vs VST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to VST's edge; BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; VST starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 VST?
BAC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VST: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 VST it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and VST 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.