BK vs CFG Stock Comparison
CFG currently leads BK in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while BK has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BK and CFG?
CFG leads the current stock comparison as Citizens Financial Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation vs Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
CFG leads
CFG leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CFG, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CFG over BK, 54 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. CFG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while BK holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CFG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CFG today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. CFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and Citizens Financial Group, Inc. 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 BK and CFG 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.
- Quality42 vs 58CFG +16
- Value38 vs 52CFG +14
- Risk Resilience72 vs 63BK +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CFG. CFG’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; BK keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
CFG's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BK and CFG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CFG (Citizens Financial Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
BK (The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
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
CFGCFG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CFGCFG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CFGCFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BKBK on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
CFGCFG 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 | CFG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -38.7% | +22.8% | CFG has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +25.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BK | CFG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.03% | 1.97% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.240 | $1.560 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.000 | $1.720 |
| Years increased | 5 | 3 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #101 | #330 |
BK grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.03% a year against CFG's 1.97%. 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CFG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CFG | 46 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | CFGon balance | revenue growth -91.6% vs 2.3%; EPS growth -100% vs 8.4%; TTM ROE 11.4% vs 8.7%; gross margin 52.5% vs 73.3%; operating margin 19.8% vs 24.8% — CFG takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CFG | Value 38 vs 52 |
| Technicals | BK | Price vs 50-day 11.4% vs -4.2%; vs 200-day 18.5% vs -1.8% |
| Risk Resilience | BK | Risk Resilience 72 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | CFG | Target upside -38.7% vs 22.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BK and CFG 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 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 CFG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CFG +8
- 46 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- CFG +2
- 50 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- CFG +9
- 52 vs 61
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when CFG moved ahead of BK.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only CFG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.50%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 +1.03%, 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.
- 1BK closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to CFG's edge.
- 2BK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CFG'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
CFG leads on balance| Metric | BK | CFG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -91.6% | 2.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -100% | 8.4% |
| Gross margin | 52.5% | 73.3% |
| Operating margin | 19.8% | 24.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.4% | 8.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.52 | 0.71 |
Performance
BK leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BK | CFG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | 1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.9% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.1% | -11.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 28.5% | -1.7% |
| Year to date | 18.1% | 9.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 52.3% | 32.7% |
Technicals
BK has the stronger structure| Metric | BK | CFG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.5 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 30.4 | 32.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.4% | -4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.5% | -1.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 17.9% |
Risk
BK is the more resilient| Metric | BK | CFG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.69 | 1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.38 | 1.53 |
| Max drawdown | -10.2% | -18.3% |
| Current drawdown | -0.6% | -14.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.3% | 25.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BK or CFG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CFG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 54 against BK's 46. The edge comes from quality and value. BK 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 BK or CFG the better buy right now?
CFG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 CFG over BK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CFG leads Quality by 16 points; CFG leads Value by 14 points; BK leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BK or CFG?
Analyst price targets imply -38.7% upside for BK and +22.8% for CFG, so the Street currently favors CFG. 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, BK or CFG?
CFG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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 CFG?
CFG 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 CFG?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, BK or CFG?
BK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BK on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 BK more profitable than CFG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 52.5% vs 73.3%; operating margin 19.8% vs 24.8%; ttm roe 11.4% vs 8.7%. BK leads on one measure and CFG 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 CFG's lead over BK getting stronger or weaker?
CFG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when CFG moved ahead of BK.
What would change the BK vs CFG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BK closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to CFG's edge; BK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; CFG'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 BK and CFG?
BK: No active signals. CFG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. On CFG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BK and CFG 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.