The structural profiles are close, with ING Groep carrying a narrow edge on profitability. Bank of America still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, ING Groep is in better shape — its trend is intact while Bank of America's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — ING Groep's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (BAC: S&P 500, INGA.AS: STOXX 600).
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
Both operate in: Banks - Diversified
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. BAC and INGA.AS share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Bank of America and ING Groep each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against ING Groep N.V..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where BAC and INGA.AS each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Return on equity adds support too, with a 5.9-point advantage.
Stability still leans toward Bank of America Corporation, so the lead is real without reading as one-way.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the BAC vs INGA.AS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BAC and INGA.AS each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.