BAC vs YMM Stock Comparison
YMM currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between BAC and YMM?
YMM leads the current stock comparison as Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd.
YMM leads
YMM leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support YMM, and its lead is narrowing.
Bank of America Corporation
Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors YMM over BAC, 59 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. YMM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. YMM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor YMM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. YMM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. 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 YMM 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 70YMM +21
- Momentum26 vs 37YMM +11
- Value57 vs 67YMM +10
- Risk Resilience60 vs 61Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor YMM. YMM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
YMM's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and YMM both carry a full feed there.
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
YMMYMM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
YMMYMM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
YMMYMM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
YMMYMM on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
YMMYMM 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 | YMM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +34.2% | YMM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +29.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 3 | 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 YMM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | YMM | 47 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | YMM | revenue growth -3.3% vs 18.4%; EPS growth -23.8% vs 8.2%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 10.6%; gross margin 60.4% vs 65.9%; operating margin 22.4% vs 33.6% |
| Valuation | YMM | Value 57 vs 67 |
| Technicals | YMM | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -8.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | YMM | Target upside 32.5% vs 34.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and YMM 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 wide at 12 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 narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 YMM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28YMM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- YMM +12
- 47 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- YMM +13
- 47 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- YMM +23
- 41 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- YMM +10
- 50 vs 60
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
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only YMM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.47%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.46%, AIQ -2 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 Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to YMM's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3YMM starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate YMM's advantage entirely.
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
YMM leads on balance| Metric | BAC | YMM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | 18.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | 8.2% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 65.9% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 33.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 10.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BAC | YMM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -4.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | -15.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -2.9% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -24.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | -38% |
Technicals
YMM has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | YMM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 44.1 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -8.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 31.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BAC | YMM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | -1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -42.4% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -38.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 35.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or YMM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, YMM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 YMM the better buy right now?
YMM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 YMM over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. YMM leads Quality by 21 points; YMM leads Momentum by 11 points; YMM leads Value by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or YMM?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +34.2% for YMM, so the Street currently favors YMM. 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 YMM?
YMM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. YMM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 YMM?
YMM 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 YMM?
YMM on the Momentum factor, by 11 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 YMM?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 YMM?
YMM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs 65.9%; operating margin 22.4% vs 33.6%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 10.6%.
Is YMM's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
YMM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 12 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 YMM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to YMM's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; YMM starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate YMM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and YMM?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. YMM: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on BAC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On YMM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and YMM 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.