BAC vs WKHS Stock Comparison
BAC currently leads WKHS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 24. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between BAC and WKHS?
BAC leads the current stock comparison as Bank of America Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Workhorse Group Inc.
BAC leads
BAC leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WKHS on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support BAC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Bank of America Corporation
Workhorse Group Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BAC over WKHS, 47 versus 24 as of Oct 31, 2026. BAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. BAC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WKHS. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BAC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. BAC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Workhorse Group 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 WKHS 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.
- Quality49 vs 0BAC +49
- Risk Resilience60 vs 30BAC +30
- Value57 vs 43BAC +14
- Momentum26 vs 25Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor BAC. BAC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 5 active signals are unchanged.
BAC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and WKHS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
WKHS (Workhorse Group Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 36.9% against 20.8%.
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
BACBAC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WKHSWKHS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 30 points.
Analyst upside
WKHSWKHS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BAC, analyst targets favor WKHS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAC | WKHS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +103.4% | WKHS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 1 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BAC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BAC | 47 vs 24 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs -17.7%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 6.5%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs -253.4%; gross margin 60.4% vs -55.3%; operating margin 22.4% vs -266.1% — BAC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 57 vs 43 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -21.9% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | WKHS | Target upside 32.5% vs 103.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and WKHS 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 wide at 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 BAC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BAC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BAC +23
- 47 vs 24
- 7 sessions ago
- BAC +23
- 47 vs 24
- 30 sessions ago
- BAC +15
- 41 vs 26
- 90 sessions ago
- BAC +21
- 50 vs 29
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.51%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only WKHS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.56%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.25%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
WKHS 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 -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 +15.69%, 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.
- 1WKHS closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge.
- 2WKHS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BAC'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
BAC leads on balance| Metric | BAC | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | -17.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | -55.3% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | -266.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | -253.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 3.88 |
Performance
BAC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -13.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -19.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | 8.5% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -50.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -80.8% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 22.9 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 17.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -21.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 36.9% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -1.24 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -2.3 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -81.9% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -80.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 98.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -8.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or WKHS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BAC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 47 against WKHS's 24. The edge comes from quality 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 WKHS the better buy right now?
BAC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 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 BAC over WKHS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BAC leads Quality by 49 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 30 points; BAC leads Value by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or WKHS?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +103.4% for WKHS, so the Street currently favors WKHS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BAC. 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 WKHS?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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 WKHS?
WKHS 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 WKHS?
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 WKHS?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 30 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 WKHS?
BAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs -55.3%; operating margin 22.4% vs -266.1%; ttm roe 10.7% vs -253.4%.
Is BAC's lead over WKHS getting stronger or weaker?
BAC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BAC vs WKHS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WKHS closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to BAC's edge; WKHS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BAC'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 WKHS?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. WKHS: 1 bullish / 3 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 WKHS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and WKHS 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.