BANC vs BANF Stock Comparison
Banc of California, Inc. vs BancFirst Corporation
BANF leads
BANF leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BANF, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Banc of California, Inc.
BancFirst Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BANF over BANC, 53 versus 46 as of Sep 5, 2026. BANF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while BANC holds the stronger value profile. BANF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BANF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. BANF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Banc of California, Inc. and BancFirst Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BANC and BANF 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.
- Quality30%40 vs 73BANF +33
- Value30%58 vs 40BANC +18
- Momentum25%31 vs 42BANF +11
- Risk Resilience15%59 vs 60Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BANF. BANF’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; BANC keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +13
No new signals fired.
BANF's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BANC and BANF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BANF (BancFirst Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BANC (Banc of California, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 24% against 18.5%.
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
BANFBANF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
BANCBANC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BANCBANC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
BANFBANF on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
BANFBANF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
BANFBANF 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 | BANC | BANF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.7% | +10.7% | BANF has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | 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 BANF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BANF | 46 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | BANFon balance | revenue growth -6.4% vs -24.3%; EPS growth -5% vs 5.3%; gross margin 53.1% vs 90.5%; operating margin -2% vs 41.1% — BANF takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BANC | Value 58 vs 40 |
| Technicals | BANF | Price vs 50-day -4.4% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day -1.6% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 59 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | BANF | Target upside 5.7% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BANC and BANF 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 moderate at 7 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 BANF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4BANF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BANF +7
- 46 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- BANF +5
- 47 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- BANF +13
- 45 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- BANF +2
- 56 vs 58
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 1 when BANF moved ahead of BANC.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.00%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.60%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
BANF 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.8%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.02%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1BANC closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to BANF's edge.
- 2BANC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3BANF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate BANF'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
BANF leads on balance| Metric | BANC | BANF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.4% | -24.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5% | 5.3% |
| Gross margin | 53.1% | 90.5% |
| Operating margin | -2% | 41.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -0.6% | 13.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.95 | 0.05 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BANC | BANF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | 2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1% | -0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.8% | 2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.6% | 3.7% |
| Year to date | -1.9% | 6.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.9% | -15.5% |
Technicals
BANF has the stronger structure| Metric | BANC | BANF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37 | 43 |
| ADX (14) | 18.3 | 14.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.4% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.6% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24% | 18.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BANC | BANF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.1 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.38 | -0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.45 | -1.04 |
| Max drawdown | -20.6% | -24.3% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | -17.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.6% | 25.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BANC or BANF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BANF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 53 against BANC's 46. The edge comes from quality and momentum. BANC is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 BANC or BANF the better buy right now?
BANF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BANF over BANC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. BANF leads Quality by 33 points; BANC leads Value by 18 points; BANF leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BANC or BANF?
Analyst price targets imply +5.7% upside for BANC and +10.7% for BANF, so the Street currently favors BANF. 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, BANC or BANF?
BANC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BANC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, BANC or BANF?
BANC 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, BANC or BANF?
BANF on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, BANC or BANF?
BANF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BANF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BANC more profitable than BANF?
BANF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 53.1% vs 90.5%; operating margin -2% vs 41.1%; ttm roe -0.6% vs 13.4%.
Is BANF's lead over BANC getting stronger or weaker?
BANF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 7 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-01, when BANF moved ahead of BANC.
What would change the BANC vs BANF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BANC closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to BANF's edge; BANC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; BANF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate BANF's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BANC and BANF?
BANC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. BANF: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 BANC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BANF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BANC and BANF 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.