BAC vs WFC Stock Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Wells Fargo & Company
WFC leads
WFC leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from BAC.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support WFC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Wells Fargo & Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WFC over BAC, 54 versus 49 as of Sep 2, 2026. WFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. WFC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WFC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. WFC lead: Reversed — BAC led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WFC now leads by 5.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Wells Fargo & Company across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%51 vs 58WFC +7
- Value30%51 vs 57WFC +6
- Risk Resilience15%59 vs 63WFC +4
- Quality30%40 vs 42Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor WFC. WFC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
WFC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
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 value.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, 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
WFCWFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
BACBAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WFCWFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
WFCWFC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
WFCWFC on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
WFCWFC 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 | WFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +3.5% | +8.1% | WFC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.6% | +20.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 7 | 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 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 | 49 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | revenue growth 63.2% vs 5.6%; EPS growth 8.9% vs 24.7%; ROE 11.1% vs 12.6%; gross margin 65.2% vs 64.5%; operating margin 24.7% vs 21.2% — BAC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WFC | Value 51 vs 57 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day 2.8% vs 4%; vs 200-day 13.3% vs 1.7% |
| Risk Resilience | WFC | Risk Resilience 59 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | WFC | Target upside 3.5% vs 8.1% |
✓ 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 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 WFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1WFC lead: Reversed — BAC led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WFC now leads by 5.
- Today
- WFC +5
- 49 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 49 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- BAC +2
- 56 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +2
- 56 vs 54
The lead changed hands 9 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.00%)
- 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 (1.61%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
WFC 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 +1.6%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.08%, 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 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to WFC's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3WFC'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
BAC leads on balance| Metric | BAC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 63.2% | 5.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.9% | 24.7% |
| Gross margin | 65.2% | 64.5% |
| Operating margin | 24.7% | 21.2% |
| Return on equity | 11.1% | 12.6% |
| Debt to equity | 2.43 | 2.55 |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.5 | 45.6 |
| ADX (14) | 24.1 | 11.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.8% | 4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.3% | 1.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17% | 18.6% |
Risk
WFC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.88 | 0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.24 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -18.4% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -10.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.4% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.8% |
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 Sep 2, 2026, scoring 54 against BAC's 49. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 Sep 2, 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 WFC over BAC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WFC leads Momentum by 7 points; WFC leads Value by 6 points; WFC leads Risk Resilience 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 +3.5% upside for BAC and +8.1% for WFC, so the Street currently favors WFC. 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 WFC?
WFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 WFC?
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 WFC?
WFC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points. 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 WFC?
WFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WFC on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 WFC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 65.2% vs 64.5%; operating margin 24.7% vs 21.2%; roe 11.1% vs 12.6%. BAC leads on two measures and WFC 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 WFC's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
WFC lead: Reversed — BAC led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WFC now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 9 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 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to WFC's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; WFC'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 WFC?
BAC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WFC: 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 WFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and WFC 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.