Compare StocksBAC vs COP

Bank of America Corporation (BAC) vs ConocoPhillips (COP): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, BAC is undervalued at $56, with a DCF intrinsic value of $133 and a margin of safety of 58%. COP is fairly valued at $108, with an intrinsic value of $113 and a margin of safety of 5%. Of the two, BAC has the wider margin of safety.

BAC
Bank of America Corporation
$56.20
VS
COP
ConocoPhillips
$107.74

Rewards

BAC
  • Bank of America Corporation scores 100/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
COP
  • PEG ratio of 0.94 suggests the stock is undervalued relative to its growth rate — paying less than 1x for each unit of earnings growth.

Risks

BAC
  • Gross margin of 0.0% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.22 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
COP
  • ROIC has declined by 17.9 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
  • Buybacks have been poorly timed — 3 out of 4 years involved repurchases at relatively expensive valuations.
  • FCF yield of 5.5% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
BAC
COP
Valuation
N/A
Free Cash Flow
$7.24B
N/A
FCF Yield
5.52%
13.95
Trailing P/E
18.26
11.13
Forward P/E
11.72
Quality & Moat
3.89%
ROIC
11.77%
10.64%
ROE
11.28%
0.00%
Gross Margin
45.59%
1.02
PEG Ratio
0.94
Balance Sheet Safety
N/A
Net Debt / Equity
0.26
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
N/A
Net Debt / EBITDA
0.73
1.97%
Dividend Yield
3.02%
BAC: 2Ties: 1COP: 5
BACCOP

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
BAC

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

COP

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

$1 Retained Earnings Test

Learn more →
BAC
$2.37
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$55.63B
Δ Market Cap
+$131.83B
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
COP
$-1.99
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Market Cap Declined
Σ Retained
$14.97B
Δ Market Cap
$-29.73B
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

Learn more →
BAC
57.9% Margin of Safety
Price is 57.9% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $56.20
Fair Value: $133.45
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
COP
24.6% Overvalued
Price is 24.6% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $107.74
Fair Value: $86.45
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
BAC

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

COP

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $108?

+6.7%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +8.0%

The market implies +6.7% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +8.0%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
BAC
100/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by revenue predictability. Reinvestment Efficiency is the area most vulnerable to competitive pressure.

Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.
COP
38/100
No Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

No durable moat detected, though roic consistency shows some competitive positioning. The business lacks consistent evidence of sustainable advantages.

Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
BAC
-2.31
Unlikely Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

M-Score Trend

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.
COP
-2.89
Unlikely Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

M-Score Trend

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

Ownership Breakdown

Learn more →
BAC
Insiders 7.3%Institutions 70.6%Retail & Other 22.0%
No. of Institutional Holders4,373
High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
COP
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 87.6%Retail & Other 12.3%
No. of Institutional Holders3,171
High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

Insider Buying Activity

Learn more →
BAC
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
COP
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $500,000
MCRAVEN WILLIAM H.
Director
$500,000
@ $86.69 · 2025-11-10
JOHNSON KIRK L
Officer
$499,472
@ $94.24 · 2025-06-16
MURTI ARJUN N
Director
$239,675
@ $95.87 · 2024-12-20
WALKER R A
Director
$1.02M
@ $97.80 · 2024-12-17
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises

Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.

Insider Selling Activity

Learn more →
BAC
0
Sells (3M)
5
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $20.17M
MENSAH BERNARD AMPONSAH
Officer
$4.41M
@ $46.94 · 2026-03-12
SCRIVENER THOMAS M
Officer
$2.49M
@ $49.82 · 2026-03-05
BRONSTEIN SHERI B
Officer
$2.99M
@ $49.91 · 2026-03-05
ATHANASIA DEAN C
President
$6.86M
@ $50.21 · 2026-03-03
BORTHWICK ALASTAIR M.
Chief Financial Officer
$3.42M
@ $50.24 · 2026-02-27
MENSAH BERNARD AMPONSAH
Officer
$3.66M
@ $39.80 · 2024-08-27
HANS LINDSAY D
Officer
$402,410
@ $36.91 · 2024-08-05
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
COP
3
Sells (3M)
12
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $127.52M
MULLIGAN SHARMILA
Director
$234,906
@ $119.00 · 2026-06-10
ROSE KELLY BRUNETTI
General Counsel
$1.00M
@ $130.03 · 2026-03-24
OLDS NICHOLAS G
Officer
$888,651
@ $127.06 · 2026-03-23
LANCE RYAN MICHAEL
Chief Executive Officer
$64.49M
@ $127.26 · 2026-03-20
HRAP HEATHER G.
Officer
$317,631
@ $119.68 · 2026-03-13
LUNDQUIST ANDREW D
Officer
$4.13M
@ $119.68 · 2026-03-13
OLDS NICHOLAS G
Officer
$1.73M
@ $119.36 · 2026-03-12
HAYNES-WELSH KONTESSA S.
Officer
$1.24M
@ $120.07 · 2026-03-12
OLDS NICHOLAS G
Officer
$1.41M
@ $116.37 · 2026-03-11
ROSE KELLY BRUNETTI
General Counsel
$1.00M
@ $118.04 · 2026-03-09
LEACH TIMOTHY ALLEN
Director
$4.75M
@ $118.79 · 2026-03-06
LANCE RYAN MICHAEL
Chief Executive Officer
$46.32M
@ $92.50 · 2025-12-19
LEACH TIMOTHY ALLEN
Director
$6.00M
@ $108.11 · 2024-08-13
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives

Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.

🎭 Mr. Market's Mood

Learn more →
BAC
FearGreed
😏Greed(74/100)

"Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"

Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.
COP
FearGreed
😐Neutral(46/100)

"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"

Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

Composite sentiment score based on market signals. Inspired by Buffett’s "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

⚖️ Buffett Signal

Learn more →
BAC
Awaiting DCF Data

The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Greed (74)
COP
Awaiting DCF Data

The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Neutral (46)
View BAC Full AnalysisView COP Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: BAC vs COP

Is Bank of America Corporation or ConocoPhillips more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, BAC trades at a 57.9% margin of safety (intrinsic value $133 vs. price $56), compared to COP's 4.7% margin of safety (intrinsic $113 vs. $108).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Bank of America Corporation or ConocoPhillips?

BAC scores 100/100 (Wide moat), while COP scores 38/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Bank of America Corporation in financial distress?

BAC's Altman Z-Score of 0.2 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. COP scores 2.8 (Grey zone). The Altman Z-Score is a five-factor model that predicts insolvency within two years; scores below 1.81 indicate significant distress.

Which stock has higher return on invested capital, Bank of America Corporation or ConocoPhillips?

COP earns 11.8% ROIC versus BAC's 3.9%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

Which dividend is safer, Bank of America Corporation's or ConocoPhillips's?

BAC's dividend earns a safety score of 79/100 (Safe), compared to COP's 78/100 (Safe). BAC has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.