BAI vs BANC Stock Comparison
iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF vs Banc of California, Inc.
BANC leads
BANC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 4 evidence groups support BANC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF
Banc of California, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BANC over BAI, 46 versus 40 as of Sep 5, 2026. BANC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while BAI holds the stronger quality profile. BANC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BANC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. BANC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF and Banc of California, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BAI and BANC 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.
- Risk Resilience15%23 vs 59BANC +36
- Value30%28 vs 58BANC +30
- Quality30%64 vs 40BAI +24
- Momentum25%37 vs 31BAI +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor BANC. BANC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; BAI keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
BANC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAI and BANC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BANC (Banc of California, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
BAI (iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 34.2% against 24%.
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
BANCBANC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
BANCBANC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
BAIBAI on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
BANCBANC on Risk Resilience, by 36 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BAI | BANC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +5.7% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BANC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BANC | 40 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | BANC | Value 28 vs 58 |
| Technicals | BAI | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -4.4%; vs 200-day 11.2% vs -1.6% |
| Risk Resilience | BANC | Risk Resilience 23 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAI and BANC 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 6 points.
- 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 BANC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4BANC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BANC +6
- 40 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- BANC +5
- 42 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- BANC +2
- 43 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- BANC +13
- 43 vs 56
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when BANC moved ahead of BAI.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.99%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.00%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
BAI 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 +2.53%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.8%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1BAI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to BANC's edge.
- 2BAI's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3BANC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
Split| Metric | BAI | BANC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | -6.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | -5% |
| Gross margin | — | 53.1% |
| Operating margin | — | -2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | -0.6% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.95 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BAI | BANC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.1% | 1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.1% | -1.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.4% | 10.6% |
| Year to date | 33.9% | -1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 42.6% | 12.9% |
Technicals
BAI has the stronger structure| Metric | BAI | BANC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.2 | 37 |
| ADX (14) | 14 | 18.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -4.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.2% | -1.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.2% | 24% |
Risk
BANC is the more resilient| Metric | BAI | BANC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.6 | 1.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 0.38 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.3 | 0.45 |
| Max drawdown | -30.9% | -20.6% |
| Current drawdown | -17.8% | -13.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.9% | 31.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAI or BANC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BANC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 46 against BAI's 40. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. BAI is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 BAI or BANC the better buy right now?
BANC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 of 4 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 BANC over BAI?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. BANC leads Risk Resilience by 36 points; BANC leads Value by 30 points; BAI leads Quality by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAI or BANC?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for BAI and +5.7% for BANC. 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, BAI or BANC?
BANC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BANC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, BAI or BANC?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, BAI or BANC?
BAI on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, BAI or BANC?
BANC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BANC on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 BAI more profitable than BANC?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is BANC's lead over BAI getting stronger or weaker?
BANC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when BANC moved ahead of BAI.
What would change the BAI vs BANC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to BANC's edge; BAI's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; BANC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 BAI and BANC?
BAI: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. BANC: 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 BAI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BANC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAI and BANC 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.