JPM vs BAC Stock Comparison
JPMorgan Chase & Co. vs Bank of America Corporation
JPM leads
JPM leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors BAC on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Bank of America Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over BAC, 50 versus 49 as of Sep 2, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while BAC holds the stronger value profile. JPM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BAC. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. JPM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Risk Resilience15%70 vs 59JPM +11
- Quality30%46 vs 40JPM +6
- Value30%45 vs 51BAC +6
- Momentum25%50 vs 51Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; BAC keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
JPM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPM and BAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
JPMJPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
BACBAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BACBAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
BACBAC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors JPM, analyst targets favor BAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JPM | BAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.9% | +3.6% | BAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.6% | +27.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 50 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth 11.9% vs 63.2%; EPS growth 27.6% vs 8.9%; ROE 17.8% vs 11.1%; gross margin 62.6% vs 65.2%; operating margin 28.2% vs 24.7% — JPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BAC | Value 45 vs 51 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 3% vs 2.8%; vs 200-day 12.2% vs 13.3% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 70 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | BAC | Target upside 0.9% vs 3.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JPM and BAC 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1JPM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JPM +1
- 50 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +2
- 51 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when JPM moved ahead of BAC.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.60%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.4%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.00%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
JPM 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 +0.9%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.52%, 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.
- 1BAC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3JPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
JPM leads on balance| Metric | JPM | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.9% | 63.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 27.6% | 8.9% |
| Gross margin | 62.6% | 65.2% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 24.7% |
| Return on equity | 17.8% | 11.1% |
| Debt to equity | 3.3 | 2.43 |
Technicals
Split| Metric | JPM | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.1 | 38.5 |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | 24.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3% | 2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.2% | 13.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.7% | 17% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | JPM | BAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.79 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.95 | 1.24 |
| Max drawdown | -15.5% | -18.4% |
| Current drawdown | -2.5% | -4.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.3% | 21.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JPM or BAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 50 against BAC's 49. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. BAC is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 JPM or BAC the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over BAC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. JPM leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; JPM leads Quality by 6 points; BAC leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JPM or BAC?
Analyst price targets imply +0.9% upside for JPM and +3.6% for BAC, so the Street currently favors BAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors JPM. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, JPM or BAC?
BAC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, JPM or BAC?
BAC 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, JPM or BAC?
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, JPM or BAC?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 JPM more profitable than BAC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 62.6% vs 65.2%; operating margin 28.2% vs 24.7%; roe 17.8% vs 11.1%. JPM leads on two measures and BAC on one measure, 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 JPM's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when JPM moved ahead of BAC.
What would change the JPM vs BAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; JPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about JPM and BAC?
JPM: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. BAC: 3 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. The most decision-relevant rule on JPM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JPM and BAC 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.