BK vs C Stock Comparison
Compare BK and C across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BK and C?
BK and C are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation vs Citigroup Inc.
BK and C are effectively level
BK and C are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
Citigroup Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate BK and C as of Sep 6, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and Citigroup Inc. 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 BK and C 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%47 vs 29BK +18
- Risk Resilience15%73 vs 59BK +14
- Value30%42 vs 55C +13
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BK and C 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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
CC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BKBK on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
CC 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 | BK | C | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.9% | +8.3% | C has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.4% | +21.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 50 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | BKon balance | revenue growth -42.2% vs 2%; EPS growth 8.4% vs 2.9%; TTM ROE 14.2% vs 8.4%; gross margin 52.5% vs 46.6%; operating margin 19.7% vs 14.2% — BK takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | C | Value 42 vs 55 |
| Technicals | BK | Price vs 50-day 11.4% vs 1.8%; vs 200-day 18.5% vs 11.8% |
| Risk Resilience | BK | Risk Resilience 73 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | C | Target upside -5.9% vs 8.3% |
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 narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5C lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- BK +6
- 52 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- C +2
- 52 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 52 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when BK moved ahead of C.
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.
No active signals
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.83%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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 -0.3%, AIQ 0 points).
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
BK leads on balance| Metric | BK | C |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -42.2% | 2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 2.9% |
| Gross margin | 52.5% | 46.6% |
| Operating margin | 19.7% | 14.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.2% | 8.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.38 | 3.84 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BK | C |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | 3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.9% | 2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.1% | 4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 28.5% | 29.3% |
| Year to date | 18.1% | 18% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 52.3% | 44.9% |
Technicals
BK has the stronger structure| Metric | BK | C |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.5 | 48.2 |
| ADX (14) | 30.4 | 14.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.4% | 1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.5% | 11.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 22.1% |
Risk
BK is the more resilient| Metric | BK | C |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.86 | 1.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.6 | 1.77 |
| Max drawdown | -10.2% | -14.8% |
| Current drawdown | -0.6% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.5% | 29.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, BK or C?
Analyst price targets imply -5.9% upside for BK and +8.3% for C, so the Street currently favors C. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BK or C?
C is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. C on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, BK or C?
C 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, BK or C?
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, BK or C?
BK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BK on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 BK more profitable than C?
BK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 52.5% vs 46.6%; operating margin 19.7% vs 14.2%; ttm roe 14.2% vs 8.4%.
What do the current signals say about BK and C?
BK: No active signals. C: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. On C it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BK and C 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.