BANC vs WSFS Stock Comparison
WSFS currently leads BANC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 49. The clearest difference is quality, while BANC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BANC and WSFS?
WSFS leads the current stock comparison as WSFS Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Banc of California, Inc. vs WSFS Financial Corporation
WSFS leads
WSFS leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support WSFS, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Banc of California, Inc.
WSFS Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WSFS over BANC, 59 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. WSFS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while BANC holds the stronger value profile. WSFS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WSFS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. WSFS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Banc of California, Inc. and WSFS Financial Corporation 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 BANC and WSFS 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.
- Quality40 vs 70WSFS +30
- Momentum44 vs 56WSFS +12
- Value57 vs 49BANC +8
- Risk Resilience60 vs 64WSFS +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor WSFS. WSFS’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; BANC keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
WSFS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BANC and WSFS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WSFS (WSFS Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BANC (Banc of California, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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
WSFSWSFS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WSFSWSFS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BANCBANC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
WSFSWSFS on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
WSFSWSFS on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
WSFSWSFS 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 | WSFS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -13.6% | +6% | WSFS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +66.7% | +13.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BANC | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.76% | 6.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.240 | $0.480 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.400 | $0.660 |
| Years increased | 1 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #198 |
BANC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.76% a year against WSFS's 6.58%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WSFS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WSFS | 49 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | WSFS | revenue growth -6.4% vs 3.9%; gross margin 53.1% vs 78.4%; operating margin -2% vs 31.3% |
| Valuation | BANC | Value 57 vs 49 |
| Technicals | WSFS | Price vs 50-day -4.6% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day -8.8% vs 7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | WSFS | Risk Resilience 60 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | WSFS | Target upside -13.6% vs 6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BANC and WSFS 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 10 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 WSFS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WSFS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WSFS +10
- 49 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- WSFS +10
- 46 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- WSFS +10
- 44 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- WSFS +16
- 45 vs 61
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
Only BANC
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.45%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only WSFS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.88%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
BANC 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 +0.06%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.65%, 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.
- 1BANC closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to WSFS's edge.
- 2BANC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WSFS'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
WSFS leads on balance| Metric | BANC | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.4% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5% | -0.6% |
| Gross margin | 53.1% | 78.4% |
| Operating margin | -2% | 31.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -0.6% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.95 | 0.11 |
Performance
WSFS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BANC | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.1% | 0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.6% | -2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.4% | 11% |
| Year to date | -10% | 40% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.6% | 53.3% |
Technicals
WSFS has the stronger structure| Metric | BANC | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.5 | 58.3 |
| ADX (14) | 30.1 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.6% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.8% | 7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.4% | 17.5% |
Risk
WSFS is the more resilient| Metric | BANC | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.99 | 0.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.28 | 1.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.35 | 2.95 |
| Max drawdown | -22.2% | -11.7% |
| Current drawdown | -20.5% | -6% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 21.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BANC or WSFS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WSFS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against BANC's 49. 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 WSFS the better buy right now?
WSFS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 WSFS over BANC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WSFS leads Quality by 30 points; WSFS leads Momentum by 12 points; BANC leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BANC or WSFS?
Analyst price targets imply -13.6% upside for BANC and +6% for WSFS, so the Street currently favors WSFS. 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 WSFS?
BANC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BANC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 WSFS?
WSFS 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 WSFS?
WSFS on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, BANC or WSFS?
WSFS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WSFS on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 BANC more profitable than WSFS?
WSFS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 53.1% vs 78.4%; operating margin -2% vs 31.3%; ttm roe -0.6% vs 11.7%.
Is WSFS's lead over BANC getting stronger or weaker?
WSFS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BANC vs WSFS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BANC closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to WSFS's edge; BANC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WSFS'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 BANC and WSFS?
BANC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WSFS: 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 BANC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WSFS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BANC and WSFS 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.