Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ASBA vs WTFC vs IBCP vs FULT vs UMBF
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
ASBA vs WTFC vs IBCP vs FULT vs UMBF — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $4.15B | $10.13B | $699M | $4.13B | $9.99B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $953M | $4.23B | $315M | $1.89B | $4.44B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $176M | $824M | $69M | $392M | $883M |
| Gross Margin | 100.0% | 62.2% | 69.6% | 67.4% | 54.4% |
| Operating Margin | 24.6% | 26.4% | 25.8% | 25.7% | 20.3% |
| Forward P/E | 31.3x | 11.6x | 9.6x | 10.6x | 10.3x |
| Total Debt | $792M | $4.48B | $117M | $1.30B | $3.80B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $544M | $468M | $52M | $271M | $953M |
ASBA vs WTFC vs IBCP vs FULT vs UMBF — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 23 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Banc-Corp (ASBA) | 100 | 105.4 | +5.4% |
| Wintrust Financial … (WTFC) | 100 | 207.2 | +107.2% |
| Independent Bank Co… (IBCP) | 100 | 191.1 | +91.1% |
| Fulton Financial Co… (FULT) | 100 | 155.2 | +55.2% |
| UMB Financial Corpo… (UMBF) | 100 | 227.3 | +127.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ASBA vs WTFC vs IBCP vs FULT vs UMBF
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ASBA carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.18, yield 3.6%
- Better valuation composite
- Beta 0.18 vs UMBF's 1.19, lower leverage
- 3.6% yield, vs UMBF's 1.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
WTFC ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 6.7%, EPS growth 12.1%
- 224.8% 10Y total return vs IBCP's 184.6%
- PEG 0.59 vs IBCP's 1.82
- +34.0% vs ASBA's +9.7%
IBCP is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.83, Low D/E 23.2%, current ratio 370.62x
- Beta 0.83, yield 3.0%, current ratio 370.62x
Among these 5 stocks, FULT doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
UMBF is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if bank quality is your priority.
- NIM 3.5% vs WTFC's 3.1%
- 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs ASBA's -6.6%
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs ASBA's 0.8% (lower = leaner)
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs ASBA's 0.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs ASBA's -6.6% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs ASBA's 0.8% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.18 vs UMBF's 1.19, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, vs UMBF's 1.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +34.0% vs ASBA's +9.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs ASBA's 0.8% |
ASBA vs WTFC vs IBCP vs FULT vs UMBF — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
ASBA vs WTFC vs IBCP vs FULT vs UMBF — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ASBA leads in 2 of 6 categories
IBCP leads 1 • WTFC leads 1 • FULT leads 0 • UMBF leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ASBA leads this category, winning 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
UMBF is the larger business by revenue, generating $4.4B annually — 14.1x IBCP's $315M. IBCP is the more profitable business, keeping 21.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ASBA's 12.9%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $953M | $4.2B | $315M | $1.9B | $4.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $617M | $1.2B | $89M | $529M | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $176M | $824M | $69M | $392M | $883M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $605M | $915M | $70M | $267M | $985M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +100.0% | +62.2% | +69.6% | +67.4% | +54.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +24.6% | +26.4% | +25.8% | +25.7% | +20.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +12.9% | +19.5% | +21.7% | +20.7% | +15.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +56.2% | +21.5% | +22.2% | +15.0% | +22.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +25.9% | +25.5% | +2.3% | +47.2% | +176.9% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — ASBA and IBCP and FULT each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.3x trailing earnings, FULT trades at a 67% valuation discount to ASBA's 31.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), WTFC offers better value at 0.66x vs IBCP's 1.97x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $4.2B | $10.1B | $699M | $4.1B | $10.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $4.4B | $14.1B | $764M | $5.2B | $12.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 31.29x | 13.08x | 10.38x | 10.31x | 14.37x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 11.62x | 9.56x | 10.61x | 10.31x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.66x | 1.97x | 0.74x | 1.59x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 18.77x | 11.71x | 9.39x | 9.74x | 12.11x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 4.36x | 2.39x | 2.22x | 2.18x | 2.25x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.83x | 1.41x | 1.41x | 1.13x | 1.30x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 7.76x | 11.12x | 9.96x | 14.52x | 10.21x |
Profitability & Efficiency
IBCP leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
IBCP delivers a 14.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $14 in annual profit, vs $4 for ASBA. ASBA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.17x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WTFC's 0.62x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IBCP scores 8/9 vs ASBA's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +3.8% | +11.3% | +14.2% | +11.6% | +11.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.4% | +1.2% | +1.3% | +1.2% | +1.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.1% | +7.5% | +10.2% | +7.5% | +7.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +0.6% | +6.4% | +2.6% | +9.5% | +14.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.17x | 0.62x | 0.23x | 0.37x | 0.49x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$227M | $4.0B | $65M | $1.0B | $2.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $544M | $468M | $52M | $271M | $953M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $792M | $4.5B | $117M | $1.3B | $3.8B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.41x | 0.74x | 0.91x | 0.84x | 0.63x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WTFC leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WTFC five years ago would be worth $20,287 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $11,944 for ASBA. Over the past 12 months, WTFC leads with a +34.0% total return vs ASBA's +9.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WTFC at 35.3% vs ASBA's 15.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +2.5% | +6.4% | +7.2% | +11.1% | +13.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +9.7% | +34.0% | +12.6% | +29.6% | +31.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +54.4% | +147.6% | +130.6% | +130.4% | +143.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +19.4% | +102.9% | +63.7% | +41.4% | +41.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +19.4% | +224.8% | +184.6% | +106.1% | +165.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +15.6% | +35.3% | +32.1% | +32.1% | +34.6% |
Risk & Volatility
ASBA leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ASBA is the less volatile stock with a 0.18 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than UMBF's 1.19 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ASBA currently trades 98.7% from its 52-week high vs IBCP's 90.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.18x | 1.16x | 0.83x | 1.13x | 1.19x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $25.37 | $162.96 | $37.39 | $22.99 | $136.11 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $23.29 | $113.75 | $29.63 | $16.60 | $98.16 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +98.7% | +92.8% | +90.8% | +93.3% | +96.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 57.0 | 63.5 | 50.6 | 55.8 | 78.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 21K | 438K | 176K | 2.0M | 613K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ASBA and UMBF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: WTFC as "Buy", IBCP as "Hold", FULT as "Hold", UMBF as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 15.5% upside for WTFC (target: $175) vs 11.9% for FULT (target: $24). For income investors, ASBA offers the higher dividend yield at 3.63% vs UMBF's 1.35%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $174.57 | $38.00 | $24.00 | $150.40 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 22 | 7 | 20 | 18 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.6% | — | +3.0% | +3.6% | +1.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 13 | 11 | 2 | 17 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.91 | — | $1.03 | $0.77 | $1.77 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.6% | 0.0% | +1.8% | +1.6% | +1.3% |
ASBA leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Risk & Volatility). IBCP leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
ASBA vs WTFC vs IBCP vs FULT vs UMBF: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ASBA or WTFC or IBCP or FULT or UMBF a better buy right now?
For growth investors, UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) is the stronger pick with 68.
5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 6% for Associated Banc-Corp (ASBA). Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) offers the better valuation at 10. 3x trailing P/E (10. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Wintrust Financial Corporation (WTFC) a "Buy" — based on 22 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 — ASBA or WTFC or IBCP or FULT or UMBF?
On trailing P/E, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the cheapest at 10.
3x versus Associated Banc-Corp at 31. 3x. On forward P/E, Independent Bank Corporation is actually cheaper at 9. 6x — 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: Wintrust Financial Corporation wins at 0. 59x versus Independent Bank Corporation's 1. 82x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ASBA or WTFC or IBCP or FULT or UMBF?
Over the past 5 years, Wintrust Financial Corporation (WTFC) delivered a total return of +102.
9%, compared to +19. 4% for Associated Banc-Corp (ASBA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WTFC returned +224. 8% versus ASBA's +19. 4%. 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 — ASBA or WTFC or IBCP or FULT or UMBF?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Associated Banc-Corp (ASBA) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
18β versus UMB Financial Corporation's 1. 19β — meaning UMBF is approximately 549% more volatile than ASBA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Associated Banc-Corp (ASBA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 62% for Wintrust Financial Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ASBA or WTFC or IBCP or FULT or UMBF?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) is pulling ahead at 68.
5% versus -6. 6% for Associated Banc-Corp (ASBA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fulton Financial Corporation grew EPS 32. 5% year-over-year, compared to -29. 2% for Associated Banc-Corp. 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 — ASBA or WTFC or IBCP or FULT or UMBF?
Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the more profitable company, earning 21.
7% net margin versus 12. 9% for Associated Banc-Corp — meaning it keeps 21. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WTFC leads at 26. 4% versus 20. 3% for UMBF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ASBA leads at 100. 0%, 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 ASBA or WTFC or IBCP or FULT or UMBF 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, Wintrust Financial Corporation (WTFC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 59x versus Independent Bank Corporation's 1. 82x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) trades at 9. 6x forward P/E versus 11. 6x for Wintrust Financial Corporation — 2. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for WTFC: 15. 5% to $174. 57.
08Which pays a better dividend — ASBA or WTFC or IBCP or FULT or UMBF?
In this comparison, ASBA (3.
6% yield), FULT (3. 6% yield), IBCP (3. 0% yield), UMBF (1. 4% yield) pay a dividend. WTFC does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ASBA or WTFC or IBCP or FULT or UMBF better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Associated Banc-Corp (ASBA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
18), 3. 6% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ASBA: +19. 4%, WTFC: +224. 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 ASBA and WTFC and IBCP and FULT and UMBF?
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: ASBA is a small-cap income-oriented stock; WTFC is a mid-cap deep-value stock; IBCP is a small-cap deep-value stock; FULT is a small-cap deep-value stock; UMBF is a small-cap high-growth stock. ASBA, IBCP, FULT, UMBF pay a dividend while WTFC does 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.