PFS vs WSFS

For growth investors, Provident Financial Services, Inc.

(PFS) is the stronger pick with 21. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 1% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS). Provident Financial Services, Inc. (PFS) offers the better valuation at 10. 1x trailing P/E (9. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Provident Financial Services, Inc. (PFS) a "Buy" — based on 9 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, Provident Financial Services, Inc.

(PFS) is the cheapest at 10. 1x versus WSFS Financial Corporation at 14. 2x. On forward P/E, Provident Financial Services, Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: WSFS Financial Corporation wins at 0. 67x versus Provident Financial Services, Inc. 's 0. 96x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) delivered a total return of +43.

1%, compared to +7. 9% for Provident Financial Services, Inc. (PFS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WSFS returned +129. 0% versus PFS's +61. 9%. 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), WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

89β versus Provident Financial Services, Inc. 's 1. 00β — meaning PFS is approximately 13% more volatile than WSFS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 89% for Provident Financial Services, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Provident Financial Services, Inc.

(PFS) is pulling ahead at 21. 3% versus -3. 1% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Provident Financial Services, Inc. grew EPS 112. 4% year-over-year, compared to 15. 4% for WSFS Financial 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.

WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) is the more profitable company, earning 21.

1% net margin versus 21. 1% for Provident Financial Services, Inc. — meaning it keeps 21. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PFS leads at 29. 5% versus 28. 0% for WSFS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WSFS leads at 74. 7%, 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, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 67x versus Provident Financial Services, Inc. 's 0. 96x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Provident Financial Services, Inc. (PFS) trades at 9. 5x forward P/E versus 11. 8x for WSFS Financial Corporation — 2. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PFS: 11. 3% to $25. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Provident Financial Services, Inc. (PFS) offers the highest yield at 4. 3%, versus 0. 9% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS).

For long-horizon retirement investors, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

89), 0. 9% yield, +129. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WSFS: +129. 0%, PFS: +61. 9%), 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.

In terms of investment character: PFS is a small-cap high-growth stock; WSFS is a small-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.