Large & Global Banks
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
BAC vs WFC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Large & Global Banks
BAC vs WFC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Large & Global Banks | Large & Global Banks |
| Market Cap | $350.71B | $256.87B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $101.88B | $86.30B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $31.51B | $22.19B |
| Gross Margin | 112.2% | 95.5% |
| Operating Margin | 40.7% | 30.6% |
| Forward P/E | 11.3x | 11.4x |
| Total Debt | $365.90B | $425.72B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $231.84B | $174.21B |
BAC vs WFC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 20 | Nov 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bank of America Cor… (BAC) | 100 | 175.5 | +75.5% |
| Wells Fargo & Compa… (WFC) | 100 | 306.9 | +206.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BAC vs WFC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BAC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.80, yield 2.6%
- Rev growth 11.0%, EPS growth 18.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 6.0%
- 237.0% 10Y total return vs WFC's 116.7%
WFC is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency and bank quality.
- PEG 0.16 vs BAC's 0.74
- NIM 2.2% vs BAC's 1.8%
- Beta 0.68 vs BAC's 0.80
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 11.0% NII/revenue growth vs WFC's 1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.3x vs 11.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.6% vs WFC's 0.7% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.68 vs BAC's 0.80 | |
| Dividends | 2.6% yield, 12-year raise streak, vs WFC's 2.0% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +0.3% vs BAC's -5.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.6% vs WFC's 0.7% |
BAC vs WFC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
BAC vs WFC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BAC leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BAC and WFC operate at a comparable scale, with $101.9B and $86.3B in trailing revenue. BAC is the more profitable business, keeping 30.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to WFC's 25.7%. On growth, BAC holds the edge at +13.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $101.9B | $86.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $43.3B | $32.2B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $31.5B | $22.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $59.2B | $21.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +112.2% | +95.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +40.7% | +30.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +30.9% | +25.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +58.1% | +24.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +13.2% | +6.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -14.2% | +12.7% |
Valuation Metrics
BAC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.9x trailing earnings, BAC trades at a 3% valuation discount to WFC's 13.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), WFC offers better value at 0.18x vs BAC's 0.84x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $350.7B | $256.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $484.8B | $508.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 12.94x | 13.28x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.33x | 11.45x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.84x | 0.18x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.12x | 17.32x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.10x | 3.07x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.23x | 1.48x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 27.81x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
WFC leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
WFC delivers a 12.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $12 in annual profit, vs $10 for BAC. BAC carries lower financial leverage with a 1.21x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WFC's 2.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BAC scores 8/9 vs WFC's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +10.5% | +12.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.9% | +1.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.5% | +3.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +4.5% | +5.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 8 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.21x | 2.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $134.1B | $251.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $231.8B | $174.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $365.9B | $425.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.56x | 0.62x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WFC leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WFC five years ago would be worth $17,975 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $11,485 for BAC. Over the past 12 months, WFC leads with a +0.3% total return vs BAC's -5.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WFC at 29.1% vs BAC's 22.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -10.1% | -9.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -5.1% | +0.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +85.7% | +115.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +14.8% | +79.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +237.0% | +116.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +22.9% | +29.1% |
Risk & Volatility
WFC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
WFC is the less volatile stock with a 0.68 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BAC's 0.80 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WFC currently trades 85.9% from its 52-week high vs BAC's 75.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.80x | 0.68x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $65.22 | $97.76 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $46.12 | $72.78 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.8% | +85.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 35.8 | 53.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 40.1M | 15.1M |
Analyst Outlook
BAC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates BAC as "Buy" and WFC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 33.5% upside for BAC (target: $66) vs 13.0% for WFC (target: $95). For income investors, BAC offers the higher dividend yield at 2.56% vs WFC's 2.01%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $66.00 | $94.86 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 54 | 60 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.6% | +2.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 12 | 4 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.27 | $1.69 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +6.9% | +7.6% |
BAC leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). WFC leads in 3 (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns).
Custom Comparison: BAC vs WFC
Compare on any lens — Growth, Value, Income, or pick from 130+ individual metrics.
BAC vs WFC: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BAC or WFC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is the stronger pick with 11.
0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 7% for Wells Fargo & Company (WFC). Bank of America Corporation (BAC) offers the better valuation at 12. 9x trailing P/E (11. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Bank of America Corporation (BAC) a "Buy" — based on 54 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — BAC or WFC?
On trailing P/E, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is the cheapest at 12.
9x versus Wells Fargo & Company at 13. 3x. On forward P/E, Bank of America Corporation is actually cheaper at 11. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Wells Fargo & Company wins at 0. 16x versus Bank of America Corporation's 0. 74x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BAC or WFC?
Over the past 5 years, Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) delivered a total return of +79.
8%, compared to +14. 8% for Bank of America Corporation (BAC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BAC returned +237. 0% versus WFC's +116. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — BAC or WFC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
68β versus Bank of America Corporation's 0. 80β — meaning BAC is approximately 18% more volatile than WFC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 121% versus 2% for Wells Fargo & Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BAC or WFC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is pulling ahead at 11.
0% versus 1. 7% for Wells Fargo & Company (WFC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Bank of America Corporation grew EPS 18. 6% year-over-year, compared to 17. 7% for Wells Fargo & Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, BAC leads at 6. 0% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — BAC or WFC?
Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
0% net margin versus 25. 5% for Wells Fargo & Company — meaning it keeps 27. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BAC leads at 33. 3% versus 30. 1% for WFC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WFC leads at 95. 6%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is BAC or WFC more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 16x versus Bank of America Corporation's 0. 74x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) trades at 11. 3x forward P/E versus 11. 4x for Wells Fargo & Company — 0. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BAC: 33. 5% to $66. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — BAC or WFC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Bank of America Corporation (BAC) offers the highest yield at 2. 6%, versus 2. 0% for Wells Fargo & Company (WFC).
09Is BAC or WFC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
68), 2. 0% yield, +116. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WFC: +116. 7%, BAC: +237. 0%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between BAC and WFC?
Both stocks operate in the Financial Services sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Related Comparisons
Other popular comparisons that include one of these companies.