ING Groep leads structurally, with growth as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. The remaining gap is narrow enough that the comparison remains open to different readings. 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.
Growth still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. ING Groep N.V. leads by 8 points on the overall comparison score.
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 growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Neither company combines the stronger profile with the cheaper valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Growth adds another layer to the lead, with a very wide gap in revenue growth between the two companies.
Bank of America Corporation still looks less cycle-sensitive — that keeps the result from looking completely one-sided.
Growth clearly separates the pair, while the broader read stays strong rather than one-way.
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.
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.