BAC vs WFC Stock Comparison
WFC currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between BAC and WFC?
WFC leads the current stock comparison as Wells Fargo & Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Wells Fargo & Company
WFC leads
WFC leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support WFC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Bank of America Corporation
Wells Fargo & Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WFC over BAC, 56 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. WFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. WFC 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 WFC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. WFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Wells Fargo & Company 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 WFC 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 49WFC +25
- Risk Resilience58 vs 77WFC +19
- Quality49 vs 53WFC +4
- Value57 vs 56Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor WFC. WFC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, 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.
WFC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and WFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WFC (Wells Fargo & Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum 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
WFCWFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WFCWFC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WFCWFC on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
WFCWFC on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 WFC, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAC | WFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +30.5% | +17.9% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +12.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 7 | 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 | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 6.86% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $1.220 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.080 | $1.700 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #133 | not ranked |
BAC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.45% a year against WFC's 6.86%. BAC never reduced its regular dividend in the window; WFC did in 1 year. 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 WFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WFC | 46 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | WFCon balance | EPS growth -23.8% vs -6.4%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 12.9%; gross margin 60.4% vs 63.9%; operating margin 22.4% vs 21.1% — WFC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 57 vs 56 |
| Technicals | WFC | Price vs 50-day -13.2% vs -3%; vs 200-day -8.1% vs -2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | WFC | Risk Resilience 58 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 30.5% vs 17.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and WFC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 WFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WFC +10
- 46 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- WFC +7
- 41 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- WFC +3
- 40 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- WFC +1
- 54 vs 55
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when BAC moved ahead of WFC.
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
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only WFC
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active.
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 +0.28%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.27%, 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 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to WFC's edge.
- 2BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3WFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
WFC leads on balance| Metric | BAC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | -1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | -6.4% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 63.9% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 21.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 12.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 1.26 |
Performance
WFC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.5% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | 0.8% |
| Year to date | -7.9% | -11.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.4% | -2.1% |
Technicals
WFC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.5 | 57.5 |
| ADX (14) | 48.6 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.2% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.1% | -2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.8% | 24.7% |
Risk
WFC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | -0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.16 | -0.1 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -14.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 25.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or WFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WFC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against BAC's 46. The edge comes from momentum 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 WFC the better buy right now?
WFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WFC over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WFC leads Momentum by 25 points; WFC leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; WFC leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or WFC?
Analyst price targets imply +30.5% upside for BAC and +17.9% for WFC, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WFC. 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 WFC?
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 WFC?
WFC 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 WFC?
WFC on the Momentum factor, by 25 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 WFC?
WFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WFC on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 WFC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 63.9%; operating margin 22.4% vs 21.1%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 12.9%. BAC leads on one measure and WFC 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 WFC's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
WFC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 10 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when BAC moved ahead of WFC.
What would change the BAC vs WFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to WFC's edge; BAC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; WFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 WFC?
BAC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WFC: 2 bullish / 0 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 WFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and WFC 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.