Insurance - Life
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ABL vs HIFS vs LPLA vs NBTB vs NWBI
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Financial - Capital Markets
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
ABL vs HIFS vs LPLA vs NBTB vs NWBI — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Banks - Regional | Financial - Capital Markets | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $791M | $619M | $24.34B | $2.38B | $2.03B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $217M | $16.99B | $867M | $877M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $37M | $45M | $863M | $169M | $126M |
| Gross Margin | — | 30.1% | 25.6% | 72.1% | 68.3% |
| Operating Margin | — | 16.8% | 13.4% | 25.3% | 18.8% |
| Forward P/E | 8.1x | 20.2x | 13.3x | 10.9x | 10.2x |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $1.50B | $7.26B | $327M | $446M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $-385K | $352M | $1.04B | $185M | $234M |
ABL vs HIFS vs LPLA vs NBTB vs NWBI — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 20 | Apr 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abacus Global Manag… (ABL) | 100 | 83.1 | -16.9% |
| Hingham Institution… (HIFS) | 100 | 155.3 | +55.3% |
| LPL Financial Holdi… (LPLA) | 100 | 392.4 | +292.4% |
| NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) | 100 | 158.8 | +58.8% |
| Northwest Bancshare… (NWBI) | 100 | 137.9 | +37.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ABL vs HIFS vs LPLA vs NBTB vs NWBI
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ABL has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.12 vs NBTB's 1.55
- Lower P/E (8.1x vs 13.3x), PEG 0.12 vs 1.00
- 5.6% ROA vs NWBI's 0.8%, ROIC 52.3% vs 5.6%
Among these 5 stocks, HIFS doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
LPLA is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 12.2% 10Y total return vs NBTB's 104.0%
- 37.2% NII/revenue growth vs ABL's -100.0%
NBTB is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.88, yield 3.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.88, Low D/E 17.3%, current ratio 1.60x
- NIM 3.1% vs HIFS's 1.0%
- 19.5% margin vs LPLA's 5.1%
NWBI ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and defensive.
- Rev growth 16.3%, EPS growth 16.5%
- Beta 0.73, yield 5.4%, current ratio 0.13x
- Beta 0.73 vs HIFS's 1.25, lower leverage
- +18.9% vs LPLA's -10.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 37.2% NII/revenue growth vs ABL's -100.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.1x vs 13.3x), PEG 0.12 vs 1.00 | |
| Quality / Margins | 19.5% margin vs LPLA's 5.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.73 vs HIFS's 1.25, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.1% yield, 12-year raise streak, vs NWBI's 5.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +18.9% vs LPLA's -10.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.6% ROA vs NWBI's 0.8%, ROIC 52.3% vs 5.6% |
ABL vs HIFS vs LPLA vs NBTB vs NWBI — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
ABL vs HIFS vs LPLA vs NBTB vs NWBI — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ABL leads in 2 of 6 categories
NBTB leads 1 • NWBI leads 1 • HIFS leads 0 • LPLA leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NBTB leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LPLA and ABL operate at a comparable scale, with $17.0B and $0 in trailing revenue. NBTB is the more profitable business, keeping 19.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to LPLA's 5.1%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $217M | $17.0B | $867M | $877M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $107M | $62M | $2.3B | $241M | $166M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $37M | $45M | $863M | $169M | $126M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$49M | $30M | -$1.1B | $225M | $142M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +30.1% | +25.6% | +72.1% | +68.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +16.8% | +13.4% | +25.3% | +18.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +13.0% | +5.1% | +19.5% | +14.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +5.4% | -5.8% | +25.2% | +16.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -5.9% | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +134.1% | +195.1% | +4.2% | +39.5% | +19.2% |
Valuation Metrics
ABL leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 13.7x trailing earnings, NBTB trades at a 51% valuation discount to LPLA's 27.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ABL offers better value at 0.12x vs LPLA's 2.10x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $791M | $619M | $24.3B | $2.4B | $2.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.0B | $1.8B | $30.6B | $2.5B | $2.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -23.79x | 22.07x | 27.79x | 13.69x | 15.10x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 8.11x | 20.19x | 13.28x | 10.94x | 10.19x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.12x | — | 2.10x | 1.95x | 1.84x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 148.79x | 47.34x | 10.48x | 10.46x | 13.62x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 7.07x | 2.85x | 1.43x | 2.74x | 2.32x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.35x | 1.44x | 4.49x | 1.22x | 1.08x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 52.65x | — | 10.87x | 14.33x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ABL leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LPLA delivers a 18.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $19 in annual profit, vs $7 for NWBI. NBTB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.17x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HIFS's 3.47x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NBTB scores 7/9 vs ABL's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.3% | +9.8% | +18.6% | +9.5% | +7.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.6% | +1.0% | +5.1% | +1.1% | +0.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +52.3% | +1.4% | +16.1% | +7.9% | +5.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +22.0% | +2.2% | +19.1% | +2.4% | +6.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 3.47x | 1.36x | 0.17x | 0.24x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $384,618 | $1.1B | $6.2B | $142M | $213M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | -$384,618 | $352M | $1.0B | $185M | $234M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $1.5B | $7.3B | $327M | $446M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.98x | 0.44x | 3.85x | 1.05x | 0.73x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — HIFS and LPLA and NWBI each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in LPLA five years ago would be worth $20,305 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,459 for ABL. Over the past 12 months, NWBI leads with a +18.9% total return vs LPLA's -10.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors HIFS at 17.0% vs ABL's -7.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +2.1% | +5.1% | -16.0% | +10.5% | +19.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -1.1% | +10.6% | -10.1% | +8.6% | +18.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.5% | +60.1% | +59.0% | +55.7% | +56.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -15.4% | -0.2% | +103.1% | +33.5% | +28.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -14.6% | +139.9% | +1215.1% | +104.0% | +52.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -7.0% | +17.0% | +16.7% | +15.9% | +16.2% |
Risk & Volatility
NWBI leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NWBI is the less volatile stock with a 0.73 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than HIFS's 1.25 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NWBI currently trades 97.4% from its 52-week high vs LPLA's 75.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.12x | 1.25x | 1.07x | 0.88x | 0.73x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $10.50 | $338.00 | $403.58 | $46.92 | $14.26 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.60 | $220.76 | $281.51 | $39.20 | $11.25 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +77.0% | +83.9% | +75.2% | +97.2% | +97.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 36.8 | 48.9 | 44.0 | 56.2 | 57.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 671K | 49K | 873K | 237K | 1.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — NBTB and NWBI each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ABL as "Buy", LPLA as "Buy", NBTB as "Hold", NWBI as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 45.3% upside for LPLA (target: $441) vs 0.9% for NBTB (target: $46). For income investors, NWBI offers the higher dividend yield at 5.39% vs LPLA's 0.39%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | — | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $11.00 | — | $441.00 | $46.00 | $14.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | — | 22 | 10 | 14 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.9% | +0.4% | +3.1% | +5.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.00 | $2.50 | $1.19 | $1.43 | $0.75 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.4% | 0.0% | +0.5% | +0.4% | 0.0% |
ABL leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). NBTB leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
ABL vs HIFS vs LPLA vs NBTB vs NWBI: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ABL or HIFS or LPLA or NBTB or NWBI a better buy right now?
For growth investors, LPL Financial Holdings Inc.
(LPLA) is the stronger pick with 37. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL). NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) offers the better valuation at 13. 7x trailing P/E (10. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL) a "Buy" — based on 2 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 — ABL or HIFS or LPLA or NBTB or NWBI?
On trailing P/E, NBT Bancorp Inc.
(NBTB) is the cheapest at 13. 7x versus LPL Financial Holdings Inc. at 27. 8x. On forward P/E, Abacus Global Management, Inc. is actually cheaper at 8. 1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Abacus Global Management, Inc. wins at 0. 12x versus NBT Bancorp Inc. 's 1. 55x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ABL or HIFS or LPLA or NBTB or NWBI?
Over the past 5 years, LPL Financial Holdings Inc.
(LPLA) delivered a total return of +103. 1%, compared to -15. 4% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LPLA returned +1215% versus ABL's -14. 6%. 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 — ABL or HIFS or LPLA or NBTB or NWBI?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Northwest Bancshares, Inc.
(NWBI) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 73β versus Hingham Institution for Savings's 1. 25β — meaning HIFS is approximately 71% more volatile than NWBI relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 3% for Hingham Institution for Savings — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ABL or HIFS or LPLA or NBTB or NWBI?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), LPL Financial Holdings Inc.
(LPLA) is pulling ahead at 37. 2% versus -100. 0% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Abacus Global Management, Inc. grew EPS 211. 8% year-over-year, compared to -22. 2% for LPL Financial Holdings 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.
06Which has better profit margins — ABL or HIFS or LPLA or NBTB or NWBI?
NBT Bancorp Inc.
(NBTB) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 5% net margin versus 0. 0% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. — meaning it keeps 19. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NBTB leads at 25. 3% versus 0. 0% for ABL. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NBTB leads at 72. 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.
07Is ABL or HIFS or LPLA or NBTB or NWBI 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, Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 12x versus NBT Bancorp Inc. 's 1. 55x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL) trades at 8. 1x forward P/E versus 20. 2x for Hingham Institution for Savings — 12. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LPLA: 45. 3% to $441. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ABL or HIFS or LPLA or NBTB or NWBI?
In this comparison, NWBI (5.
4% yield), NBTB (3. 1% yield), HIFS (0. 9% yield), LPLA (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. ABL does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ABL or HIFS or LPLA or NBTB or NWBI better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Northwest Bancshares, Inc.
(NWBI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 73), 5. 4% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NWBI: +52. 7%, ABL: -14. 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.
10What are the main differences between ABL and HIFS and LPLA and NBTB and NWBI?
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: ABL is a small-cap quality compounder stock; HIFS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LPLA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; NBTB is a small-cap deep-value stock; NWBI is a small-cap high-growth stock. HIFS, NBTB, NWBI pay a dividend while ABL, LPLA do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.