CPF vs FHB

For growth investors, Central Pacific Financial Corp.

(CPF) is the stronger pick with 6. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 2% for First Hawaiian, Inc. (FHB). Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF) offers the better valuation at 12. 1x trailing P/E (10. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF) a "Hold" — based on 8 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.

On trailing P/E, Central Pacific Financial Corp.

(CPF) is the cheapest at 12. 1x versus First Hawaiian, Inc. at 12. 5x. On forward P/E, Central Pacific Financial Corp. is actually cheaper at 10. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Central Pacific Financial Corp. wins at 0. 63x versus First Hawaiian, Inc. 's 1. 34x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Central Pacific Financial Corp.

(CPF) delivered a total return of +39. 5%, compared to +14. 5% for First Hawaiian, Inc. (FHB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CPF returned +93. 4% versus FHB's +52. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Central Pacific Financial Corp.

(CPF) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 80β versus First Hawaiian, Inc. 's 1. 03β — meaning FHB is approximately 28% more volatile than CPF relative to the S&P 500.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Central Pacific Financial Corp.

(CPF) is pulling ahead at 6. 4% versus 3. 2% for First Hawaiian, Inc. (FHB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Central Pacific Financial Corp. grew EPS 45. 7% year-over-year, compared to 22. 9% for First Hawaiian, Inc.. 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.

First Hawaiian, Inc.

(FHB) is the more profitable company, earning 23. 6% net margin versus 21. 4% for Central Pacific Financial Corp. — meaning it keeps 23. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FHB leads at 30. 3% versus 27. 8% for CPF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CPF leads at 76. 1%, 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.

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, Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 63x versus First Hawaiian, Inc. 's 1. 34x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF) trades at 10. 6x forward P/E versus 12. 1x for First Hawaiian, Inc. — 1. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FHB: 1. 5% to $27. 83.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

First Hawaiian, Inc. (FHB) offers the highest yield at 3. 8%, versus 3. 2% for Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Central Pacific Financial Corp.

(CPF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 80), 3. 2% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CPF: +93. 4%, FHB: +52. 6%), 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.

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.