BK vs USB Stock Comparison
Compare BK and USB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BK and USB?
USB leads the current stock comparison as U.S. Bancorp, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation vs U.S. Bancorp
USB leads
USB leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support USB, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
U.S. Bancorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USB over BK, 57 versus 50 as of Sep 6, 2026. USB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. USB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor USB today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. USB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and U.S. Bancorp 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 USB 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.
- Value30%42 vs 56USB +14
- Risk Resilience15%73 vs 77USB +4
- Quality30%47 vs 50Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor USB. USB’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
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.
USB's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BK and USB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
USB (U.S. Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
BK (The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation): the counter-case, on 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
USBUSB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
USBUSB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
USBUSB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
USBUSB on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
USBUSB 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 | USB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.9% | +7% | USB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.4% | +22.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 15 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor USB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | USB | 50 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | USBon balance | EPS growth 8.4% vs 14.4%; TTM ROE 14.2% vs 12.5%; gross margin 52.5% vs 63.8%; operating margin 19.7% vs 23.9% — USB takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | USB | Value 42 vs 56 |
| Technicals | BK | Price vs 50-day 11.4% vs 0.5%; vs 200-day 18.5% vs 11.7% |
| Risk Resilience | USB | Risk Resilience 73 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | USB | Target upside -5.9% vs 7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BK and USB and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 7 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 USB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5USB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USB +7
- 50 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- BK +1
- 52 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- USB +10
- 52 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- USB +10
- 52 vs 62
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when USB 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
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
USB 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.25%, AIQ 0 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 Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to USB's edge.
- 2BK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3USB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate USB'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
USB leads on balance| Metric | BK | USB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -42.2% | 0.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 14.4% |
| Gross margin | 52.5% | 63.8% |
| Operating margin | 19.7% | 23.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.2% | 12.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.38 | 1.42 |
Performance
BK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BK | USB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | 1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.9% | -0.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.1% | 13.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 28.5% | 21% |
| Year to date | 18.1% | 18.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 52.3% | 30.6% |
Technicals
BK has the stronger structure| Metric | BK | USB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.5 | 41 |
| ADX (14) | 30.4 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.4% | 0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.5% | 11.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 18.6% |
Risk
USB is the more resilient| Metric | BK | USB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.86 | 1.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.6 | 1.55 |
| Max drawdown | -10.2% | -16.2% |
| Current drawdown | -0.6% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.5% | 22.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BK or USB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, USB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 57 against BK's 50. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. 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 USB the better buy right now?
USB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor USB over BK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. USB leads Value by 14 points; USB leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BK or USB?
Analyst price targets imply -5.9% upside for BK and +7% for USB, so the Street currently favors USB. 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 USB?
USB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. USB 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 USB?
USB 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 USB?
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 USB?
USB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. USB on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 USB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 52.5% vs 63.8%; operating margin 19.7% vs 23.9%; ttm roe 14.2% vs 12.5%. BK leads on one measure and USB 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 USB's lead over BK getting stronger or weaker?
USB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when USB moved ahead of BK.
What would change the BK vs USB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BK closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to USB's edge; BK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; USB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate USB's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BK and USB?
BK: No active signals. USB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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. On USB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BK and USB 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.