BK vs ZION Stock Comparison
ZION currently leads BK in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while BK has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BK and ZION?
ZION leads the current stock comparison as Zions Bancorporation, National Association, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation vs Zions Bancorporation, National Association
ZION leads
ZION leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ZION, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
Zions Bancorporation, National Association
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZION over BK, 64 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. ZION's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while BK holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ZION also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZION today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ZION lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and Zions Bancorporation, National Association 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 ZION 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 70ZION +28
- Value38 vs 63ZION +25
- Risk Resilience72 vs 62BK +10
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ZION. ZION’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 +14
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
ZION'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 ZION both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZION (Zions Bancorporation, National Association): 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
ZIONZION on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZIONZION on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZIONZION on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BKBK on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
ZIONZION 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 | ZION | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -38.7% | +14.9% | ZION has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +22.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BK | ZION |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.03% | 5.29% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.240 | $1.360 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.000 | $1.760 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #101 | #238 |
BK grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.03% a year against ZION's 5.29%. 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 ZION. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ZION | 46 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | ZION | revenue growth -91.6% vs 25%; EPS growth -100% vs 95.5%; TTM ROE 11.4% vs 16.1%; gross margin 52.5% vs 71.4%; operating margin 19.8% vs 29.1% |
| Valuation | ZION | Value 38 vs 63 |
| Technicals | BK | Price vs 50-day 11.4% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day 18.5% vs 1.6% |
| Risk Resilience | BK | Risk Resilience 72 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | ZION | Target upside -38.7% vs 14.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BK and ZION 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 wide at 18 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ZION.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ZION lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZION +18
- 46 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- ZION +9
- 50 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- ZION +5
- 50 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- ZION +14
- 52 vs 66
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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ZION
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.97%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ZION 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.73%, 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 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZION's edge.
- 2BK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ZION's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
ZION leads on balance| Metric | BK | ZION |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -91.6% | 25% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -100% | 95.5% |
| Gross margin | 52.5% | 71.4% |
| Operating margin | 19.8% | 29.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.4% | 16.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.52 | 0.41 |
Performance
BK leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BK | ZION |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | 3.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.9% | 1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.1% | -7.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 28.5% | 4.1% |
| Year to date | 18.1% | 10.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 52.3% | 37.6% |
Technicals
BK has the stronger structure| Metric | BK | ZION |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.5 | 63.1 |
| ADX (14) | 30.4 | 28.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.4% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.5% | 1.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 17.4% |
Risk
BK is the more resilient| Metric | BK | ZION |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.69 | 1.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.38 | 1.37 |
| Max drawdown | -10.2% | -18.7% |
| Current drawdown | -0.6% | -11.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.3% | 25.5% |
| 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 ZION?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZION is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 64 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 ZION the better buy right now?
ZION carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 ZION over BK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZION leads Quality by 28 points; ZION leads Value by 25 points; BK leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BK or ZION?
Analyst price targets imply -38.7% upside for BK and +14.9% for ZION, so the Street currently favors ZION. 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 ZION?
ZION is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZION on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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 ZION?
ZION 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 ZION?
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 ZION?
BK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BK on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 ZION?
ZION leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 52.5% vs 71.4%; operating margin 19.8% vs 29.1%; ttm roe 11.4% vs 16.1%.
Is ZION's lead over BK getting stronger or weaker?
ZION lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 18 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 BK vs ZION verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BK closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZION's edge; BK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; ZION's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 ZION?
BK: No active signals. ZION: 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 ZION it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BK and ZION 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.