BAI vs WBS Stock Comparison
iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF vs Webster Financial Corporation
WBS leads
WBS leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support WBS, and its lead is narrowing.
iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF
Webster Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WBS over BAI, 59 versus 40 as of Sep 5, 2026. WBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. WBS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor WBS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. WBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF and Webster Financial Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BAI and WBS 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 69WBS +46
- Value30%28 vs 51WBS +23
- Quality30%64 vs 62Even
4 of 4 evidence groups favor WBS. WBS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
WBS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAI and WBS 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
WBSWBS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
WBSWBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WBSWBS on Risk Resilience, by 46 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 | WBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | -2% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Hold | 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
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor WBS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WBS | 40 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | WBS | Value 28 vs 51 |
| Technicals | WBS | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs 1.4%; vs 200-day 11.2% vs 11.4% |
| Risk Resilience | WBS | Risk Resilience 23 vs 69 |
| 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 WBS 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 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 WBS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4WBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WBS +19
- 40 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- WBS +18
- 42 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- WBS +22
- 43 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- WBS +22
- 43 vs 65
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.
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
No active signals
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).
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 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to WBS's edge.
- 2BAI's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3WBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 19-point move would eliminate WBS'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
Split| Metric | BAI | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 12.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 4% |
| Gross margin | — | 62.5% |
| Operating margin | — | 26.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.46 |
Performance
BAI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAI | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.1% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.1% | 8.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.4% | 7% |
| Year to date | 33.9% | 23.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 42.6% | 34.9% |
Technicals
WBS has the stronger structure| Metric | BAI | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.2 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 14 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | 1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.2% | 11.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.2% | 14.3% |
Risk
WBS is the more resilient| Metric | BAI | WBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.6 | 0.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 1.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.3 | 1.75 |
| Max drawdown | -30.9% | -14% |
| Current drawdown | -17.8% | -2% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.9% | 23.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAI or WBS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WBS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 59 against BAI's 40. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 BAI or WBS the better buy right now?
WBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 WBS over BAI?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WBS leads Risk Resilience by 46 points; WBS leads Value by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAI or WBS?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for BAI and -2% for WBS. 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 WBS?
WBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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 WBS?
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 WBS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 WBS?
WBS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WBS on Risk Resilience, by 46 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 WBS?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is WBS's lead over BAI getting stronger or weaker?
WBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BAI vs WBS 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 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to WBS's edge; BAI's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; WBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 19-point move would eliminate WBS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAI and WBS?
BAI: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WBS: No active signals. 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).
Compare BAI and WBS 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.