BCE vs LYG Stock Comparison
Compare BCE and LYG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BCE and LYG?
BCE leads the current stock comparison as BCE Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BCE Inc. vs Lloyds Banking Group plc
BCE leads
BCE leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BCE, and its lead is narrowing.
BCE Inc.
Lloyds Banking Group plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BCE over LYG, 56 versus 48 as of Sep 11, 2026. BCE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while LYG holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BCE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BCE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. BCE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BCE Inc. and Lloyds Banking Group plc across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare BCE and LYG 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.
- Value64 vs 46BCE +18
- Quality58 vs 41BCE +17
- Risk Resilience56 vs 63LYG +7
- Momentum44 vs 48LYG +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BCE. BCE’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; LYG keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
BCE's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BCE and LYG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BCE (BCE Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
LYG (Lloyds Banking Group plc): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 18.5% against 12.9%.
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
BCEBCE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LYGLYG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BCEBCE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
LYGLYG on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
LYGLYG on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
BCEBCE 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 | BCE | LYG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.9% | -54.2% | BCE 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BCE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BCE | 56 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | LYGon balance | TTM ROE 27.7% vs 11.1%; gross margin 59.2% vs 99.1%; operating margin 21.6% vs 38.3% — LYG takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BCE | Value 64 vs 46 |
| Technicals | LYG | Price vs 50-day 4% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -2.8% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | LYG | Risk Resilience 56 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | BCE | Target upside 6.9% vs -54.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BCE and LYG 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 8 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 BCE.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BCE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BCE +8
- 56 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- BCE +10
- 60 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- BCE +15
- 62 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- LYG +5
- 49 vs 54
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.42%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.81%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
LYG 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.6%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.04%, 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.
- 1LYG closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to BCE's edge.
- 2LYG's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3BCE starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate BCE'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
LYG leads on balance| Metric | BCE | LYG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.1% | 167% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -9.1% | 0.8% |
| Gross margin | 59.2% | 99.1% |
| Operating margin | 21.6% | 38.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 27.7% | 11.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.75 | 2.18 |
Performance
LYG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BCE | LYG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | -4.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.9% | 14.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.2% | 10.1% |
| Year to date | -2.4% | 11.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.7% | 34.5% |
Technicals
LYG has the stronger structure| Metric | BCE | LYG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.8 | 49.4 |
| ADX (14) | 27.9 | 17.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.8% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.9% | 18.5% |
Risk
LYG is the more resilient| Metric | BCE | LYG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.2 | 1.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.3 | 0.97 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.46 | 1.65 |
| Max drawdown | -21.1% | -22.7% |
| Current drawdown | -12.1% | -6.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 29.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BCE or LYG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BCE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against LYG's 48. The edge comes from value and quality. LYG is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 BCE or LYG the better buy right now?
BCE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BCE over LYG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BCE leads Value by 18 points; BCE leads Quality by 17 points; LYG leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BCE or LYG?
Analyst price targets imply +6.9% upside for BCE and -54.2% for LYG, so the Street currently favors BCE. 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, BCE or LYG?
BCE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BCE 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, BCE or LYG?
LYG 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, BCE or LYG?
LYG on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, BCE or LYG?
LYG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LYG on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 BCE more profitable than LYG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 59.2% vs 99.1%; operating margin 21.6% vs 38.3%; ttm roe 27.7% vs 11.1%. BCE leads on one measure and LYG on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is BCE's lead over LYG getting stronger or weaker?
BCE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BCE vs LYG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LYG closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to BCE's edge; LYG's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; BCE starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate BCE's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BCE and LYG?
BCE: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. LYG: 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 BCE is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On LYG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BCE and LYG 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.