Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
3 / 10Stock Comparison
MTB vs CFG vs HBAN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
MTB vs CFG vs HBAN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $32.74B | $27.70B | $25.63B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $13.40B | $12.35B | $12.48B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $2.77B | $1.70B | $2.21B |
| Gross Margin | 64.3% | 57.6% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | 24.7% | 15.3% | 21.5% |
| Forward P/E | 11.4x | 12.4x | 11.1x |
| Total Debt | $13.66B | $12.40B | $18.48B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20.78B | $11.24B | $1.78B |
MTB vs CFG vs HBAN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) | 100 | 201.6 | +101.6% |
| Citizens Financial … (CFG) | 100 | 266.4 | +166.4% |
| Huntington Bancshar… (HBAN) | 100 | 182.1 | +82.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MTB vs CFG vs HBAN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MTB carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 9 yrs, beta 0.93, yield 2.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.93, Low D/E 47.1%, current ratio 0.22x
- Beta 0.93, yield 2.5%, current ratio 0.22x
CFG is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 257.8% 10Y total return vs MTB's 125.8%
- +73.3% vs HBAN's +12.4%
HBAN is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 4.4%, EPS growth 13.9%
- PEG 0.74 vs MTB's 9.05
- Lower P/E (11.1x vs 12.4x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 7.2% NII/revenue growth vs CFG's 1.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.1x vs 12.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs CFG's 0.4% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.93 vs CFG's 1.33, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield, 9-year raise streak, vs HBAN's 3.7% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +73.3% vs HBAN's +12.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs CFG's 0.4% |
MTB vs CFG vs HBAN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
MTB vs CFG vs HBAN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MTB leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MTB and CFG operate at a comparable scale, with $13.4B and $12.3B in trailing revenue. MTB is the more profitable business, keeping 19.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CFG's 12.2%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $13.4B | $12.3B | $12.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $4.0B | $2.6B | $3.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $2.8B | $1.7B | $2.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4.1B | $2.7B | $2.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +64.3% | +57.6% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +24.7% | +15.3% | +21.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +19.3% | +12.2% | +17.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +25.3% | +15.2% | +18.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +19.9% | +38.2% | -11.8% |
Valuation Metrics
HBAN leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 11.6x trailing earnings, HBAN trades at a 45% valuation discount to CFG's 21.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), HBAN offers better value at 0.77x vs MTB's 11.53x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $32.7B | $27.7B | $25.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $25.6B | $28.9B | $42.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 14.55x | 21.19x | 11.65x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.43x | 12.39x | 11.10x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 11.53x | — | 0.77x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.71x | 12.10x | 15.75x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.44x | 2.24x | 2.05x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.23x | 1.20x | 1.00x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9.65x | 14.74x | 11.25x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MTB leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HBAN delivers a 10.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $10 in annual profit, vs $7 for CFG. MTB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.47x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HBAN's 0.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CFG scores 7/9 vs MTB's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.7% | +6.6% | +10.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.3% | +0.8% | +1.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.0% | +3.8% | +5.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.2% | +4.4% | +4.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.47x | 0.51x | 0.76x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$7.1B | $1.2B | $16.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20.8B | $11.2B | $1.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $13.7B | $12.4B | $18.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.98x | 0.55x | 0.62x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CFG leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CFG five years ago would be worth $14,687 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $12,203 for HBAN. Over the past 12 months, CFG leads with a +73.3% total return vs HBAN's +12.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CFG at 39.1% vs HBAN's 22.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +5.1% | +9.7% | -6.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +25.9% | +73.3% | +12.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +97.4% | +169.3% | +85.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +46.5% | +46.9% | +22.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +125.8% | +257.8% | +121.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +25.4% | +39.1% | +22.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MTB and CFG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MTB is the less volatile stock with a 0.93 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CFG's 1.33 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CFG currently trades 93.3% from its 52-week high vs HBAN's 83.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.93x | 1.33x | 1.09x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $239.00 | $68.79 | $19.46 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $172.95 | $37.93 | $14.87 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +89.1% | +93.3% | +83.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 53.3 | 60.2 | 53.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.0M | 4.5M | 24.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MTB and HBAN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MTB as "Hold", CFG as "Buy", HBAN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 25.9% upside for HBAN (target: $20) vs 11.6% for MTB (target: $238). For income investors, HBAN offers the higher dividend yield at 3.73% vs MTB's 2.51%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $237.71 | $72.42 | $20.38 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 48 | 38 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.5% | +2.6% | +3.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 9 | 3 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $5.35 | $1.70 | $0.60 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.3% | +4.9% | 0.0% |
MTB leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). HBAN leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
MTB vs CFG vs HBAN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MTB or CFG or HBAN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the stronger pick with 7.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 3% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG). Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) offers the better valuation at 11. 6x trailing P/E (11. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG) a "Buy" — based on 38 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.
02Which has the better valuation — MTB or CFG or HBAN?
On trailing P/E, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) is the cheapest at 11.
6x versus Citizens Financial Group, Inc. at 21. 2x. On forward P/E, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is actually cheaper at 11. 1x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Huntington Bancshares Incorporated wins at 0. 74x versus M&T Bank Corporation's 9. 05x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MTB or CFG or HBAN?
Over the past 5 years, Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
(CFG) delivered a total return of +46. 9%, compared to +22. 0% for Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CFG returned +257. 8% versus HBAN's +121. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — MTB or CFG or HBAN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
93β versus Citizens Financial Group, Inc. 's 1. 33β — meaning CFG is approximately 43% more volatile than MTB relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 47% versus 76% for Huntington Bancshares Incorporated — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MTB or CFG or HBAN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is pulling ahead at 7.
2% versus 1. 3% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Huntington Bancshares Incorporated grew EPS 13. 9% year-over-year, compared to -7. 3% for M&T Bank Corporation. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — MTB or CFG or HBAN?
M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the more profitable company, earning 19.
3% net margin versus 12. 2% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 19. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MTB leads at 24. 7% versus 15. 3% for CFG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MTB leads at 64. 3%, 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.
07Is MTB or CFG or HBAN more undervalued right now?
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, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 74x versus M&T Bank Corporation's 9. 05x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) trades at 11. 1x forward P/E versus 12. 4x for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — 1. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for HBAN: 25. 9% to $20. 38.
08Which pays a better dividend — MTB or CFG or HBAN?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) offers the highest yield at 3. 7%, versus 2. 5% for M&T Bank Corporation (MTB).
09Is MTB or CFG or HBAN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
93), 2. 5% yield, +125. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MTB: +125. 8%, CFG: +257. 8%), 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.
10What are the main differences between MTB and CFG and HBAN?
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.
In terms of investment character: MTB is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CFG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; HBAN is a mid-cap deep-value stock. 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.