WFC vs. BAC
WFC (Wells Fargo & Company) and BAC (Bank of America Corporation) are both stocks. Both operate in the Banks - Diversified industry within the Financial Services sector. Over the past 10 years, WFC returned 9.11%/yr vs 18.54%/yr for BAC. Their 0.64 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently.
Performance
WFC vs. BAC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, WFC achieves a -6.25% return, which is significantly lower than BAC's 13.86% return. Over the past 10 years, WFC has underperformed BAC with an annualized return of 9.11%, while BAC has yielded a comparatively higher 18.54% annualized return.
WFC
- 1D
- 1.19%
- 1M
- 1.10%
- 6M
- -3.45%
- YTD
- -6.25%
- 1Y
- 13.59%
- 3Y*
- 26.79%
- 5Y*
- 16.24%
- 10Y*
- 9.11%
- ALL TIME*
- 11.08%
BAC
- 1D
- 0.36%
- 1M
- 5.48%
- 6M
- 17.71%
- YTD
- 13.86%
- 1Y
- 38.63%
- 3Y*
- 28.30%
- 5Y*
- 12.79%
- 10Y*
- 18.54%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.33%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $2.02B | $2.04B | $2.03B | |
| $1.25B | $1.40B | $1.35B |
WFC vs. BAC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WFC Wells Fargo & Company | -6.25% | 35.57% | 46.48% | 22.94% | -11.92% | 61.15% | -41.65% | 21.44% | -21.83% | 13.21% |
BAC Bank of America Corporation | 13.86% | 28.04% | 33.85% | 4.83% | -23.82% | 49.61% | -11.63% | 46.19% | -15.00% | 35.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between WFC and BAC is 0.78, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.78 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.78 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.81 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.80 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 1986 | 0.64 |
The correlation between WFC and BAC shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (all time) to 0.81 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
WFC:
$264.55B
BAC:
$439.63B
WFC:
$7.11
BAC:
$4.50
WFC:
12.15
BAC:
13.75
WFC:
1.05
BAC:
5.52
WFC:
2.13
BAC:
2.61
WFC:
1.62
BAC:
1.64
WFC:
$129.11B
BAC:
$177.58B
WFC:
$83.28B
BAC:
$115.79B
WFC:
$33.13B
BAC:
$45.64B
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
WFC vs. BAC — Risk / Return Rank
WFC
BAC
WFC vs. BAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) and Bank of America Corporation (BAC). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| WFC | BAC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.20 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.42 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.08 | 1.27 | -0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.42 | 1.90 | -1.48 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.90 | 5.00 | -4.10 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
WFC vs. BAC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum WFC drawdown since its inception was -79.01%, smaller than the maximum BAC drawdown of -93.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WFC and BAC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| WFC | BAC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -79.01% | -93.10% | +14.09% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -23.02% | -17.93% | -5.09% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.73% | -27.51% | +2.78% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.10% | -46.64% | +9.54% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -64.46% | -48.95% | -15.51% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -9.36% | -1.07% | -8.29% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.33% | -28.21% | +12.88% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.67% | 6.82% | +3.85% |
Volatility
WFC vs. BAC - Volatility Comparison
Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) has a higher volatility of 7.40% compared to Bank of America Corporation (BAC) at 5.89%. This indicates that WFC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BAC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| WFC | BAC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.40% | 5.89% | +1.51% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.23% | 16.31% | +3.92% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.74% | 21.85% | +4.89% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.93% | 26.67% | +3.26% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 32.32% | 30.46% | +1.86% |
Dividends
WFC vs. BAC - Dividend Comparison
WFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, more than BAC's 1.81% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAC Bank of America Corporation | 1.81% | 1.96% | 2.28% | 2.73% | 2.60% | 1.75% | 2.38% | 1.87% | 2.19% | 1.32% | 1.13% | 1.19% |
WFC Wells Fargo & Company | 2.08% | 1.82% | 2.14% | 2.64% | 2.66% | 1.25% | 4.04% | 3.57% | 3.56% | 2.54% | 2.75% | 2.71% |
Financials
WFC vs. BAC - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Wells Fargo & Company and Bank of America Corporation. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
WFC vs. BAC - Profitability Comparison
WFC - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Wells Fargo & Company reported a gross profit of 21.71B and revenue of 33.59B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 64.6%.
BAC - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Bank of America Corporation reported a gross profit of 30.19B and revenue of 49.39B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 61.1%.
WFC - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Wells Fargo & Company reported an operating income of 8.05B and revenue of 33.59B, resulting in an operating margin of 24.0%.
BAC - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Bank of America Corporation reported an operating income of 11.57B and revenue of 49.39B, resulting in an operating margin of 23.4%.
WFC - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Wells Fargo & Company reported a net income of 6.41B and revenue of 33.59B, resulting in a net margin of 19.1%.
BAC - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Bank of America Corporation reported a net income of 9.07B and revenue of 49.39B, resulting in a net margin of 18.4%.
Frequently Asked Questions
WFC and BAC have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
WFC has higher volatility (7.40%) compared to BAC (5.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WFC dropped -79.01% vs BAC's -93.10%.
BAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.56 vs 0.36), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for WFC and BAC
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer