Asset Management
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
BBT vs CFG vs TFC vs RF
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
BBT vs CFG vs TFC vs RF — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Asset Management | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $2.43B | $27.70B | $65.48B | $24.27B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $759M | $12.35B | $24.25B | $9.61B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $59M | $1.70B | $5.23B | $2.16B |
| Gross Margin | 51.1% | 57.6% | 47.0% | 74.6% |
| Operating Margin | 16.0% | 15.3% | -2.5% | 28.5% |
| Forward P/E | 8.3x | 12.4x | 11.0x | 10.7x |
| Total Debt | $879M | $12.40B | $62.27B | $4.88B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $2.04B | $11.24B | $39.77B | $10.91B |
BBT vs CFG vs TFC vs RF — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beacon Financial Co… (BBT) | 100 | 266.9 | +166.9% |
| Citizens Financial … (CFG) | 100 | 266.4 | +166.4% |
| Truist Financial Co… (TFC) | 100 | 135.3 | +35.3% |
| Regions Financial C… (RF) | 100 | 247.2 | +147.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BBT vs CFG vs TFC vs RF
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BBT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 18.0%, EPS growth 44.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.84, Low D/E 35.2%, current ratio 0.19x
- 18.0% NII/revenue growth vs TFC's -19.0%
- Lower P/E (8.3x vs 11.0x)
CFG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum is your priority.
- +73.3% vs BBT's +18.2%
TFC is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 10 yrs, beta 1.07, yield 4.2%
- 4.2% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs RF's 3.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
RF is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and defensive.
- 283.3% 10Y total return vs CFG's 257.8%
- Beta 1.10, yield 3.7%, current ratio 0.30x
- NIM 3.1% vs BBT's 2.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 18.0% NII/revenue growth vs TFC's -19.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.3x vs 11.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs TFC's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.84 vs CFG's 1.33, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.2% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs RF's 3.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +73.3% vs BBT's +18.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs TFC's 0.5% |
BBT vs CFG vs TFC vs RF — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
BBT vs CFG vs TFC vs RF — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
RF leads in 3 of 6 categories
CFG leads 1 • BBT leads 0 • TFC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RF leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TFC is the larger business by revenue, generating $24.3B annually — 31.9x BBT's $759M. RF is the more profitable business, keeping 22.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BBT's 11.9%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $759M | $12.3B | $24.3B | $9.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $87M | $2.6B | $7.2B | $2.8B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $59M | $1.7B | $5.2B | $2.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $54M | $2.7B | $3.9B | $2.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +51.1% | +57.6% | +47.0% | +74.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +16.0% | +15.3% | -2.5% | +28.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +11.9% | +12.2% | +19.9% | +22.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +15.2% | +8.9% | +22.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +178.3% | +38.2% | -9.1% | +3.6% |
Valuation Metrics
RF leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.2x trailing earnings, RF trades at a 56% valuation discount to BBT's 28.0x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, RF's 6.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than TFC's 232.7x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.4B | $27.7B | $65.5B | $24.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.3B | $28.9B | $88.0B | $18.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 28.04x | 21.19x | 14.81x | 12.21x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 8.30x | 12.39x | 10.97x | 10.70x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 0.70x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.62x | 12.10x | 232.75x | 6.50x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.20x | 2.24x | 2.70x | 2.53x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.01x | 1.20x | 1.04x | 1.29x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 14.74x | 30.26x | 11.13x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RF leads this category, winning 8 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
RF delivers a 11.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $11 in annual profit, vs $3 for BBT. RF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.26x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TFC's 0.98x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), RF scores 9/9 vs BBT's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +3.2% | +6.6% | +8.0% | +11.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.3% | +0.8% | +1.0% | +1.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.0% | +3.8% | -0.4% | +8.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.1% | +4.4% | -0.5% | +9.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 9 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.35x | 0.51x | 0.98x | 0.26x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$1.2B | $1.2B | $22.5B | -$6.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $2.0B | $11.2B | $39.8B | $10.9B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $879M | $12.4B | $62.3B | $4.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.25x | 0.55x | 0.62x | 1.32x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CFG leads this category, winning 4 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 $9,734 for TFC. Over the past 12 months, CFG leads with a +73.3% total return vs BBT's +18.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CFG at 39.1% vs BBT's 17.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +10.6% | +9.7% | +1.1% | +2.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +18.2% | +73.3% | +33.9% | +39.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +62.2% | +169.3% | +94.8% | +88.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +30.4% | +46.9% | -2.7% | +41.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +39.1% | +257.8% | +100.4% | +283.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +17.5% | +39.1% | +24.9% | +23.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BBT and CFG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BBT is the less volatile stock with a 0.84 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 BBT's 88.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.84x | 1.33x | 1.07x | 1.10x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $32.83 | $68.79 | $56.20 | $31.53 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $22.81 | $37.93 | $38.27 | $20.67 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +88.0% | +93.3% | +88.5% | +88.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 37.7 | 60.2 | 56.7 | 55.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 759K | 4.5M | 8.6M | 11.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — TFC and RF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BBT as "Hold", CFG as "Buy", TFC as "Buy", RF as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 26.4% upside for BBT (target: $37) vs 10.1% for RF (target: $31). For income investors, TFC offers the higher dividend yield at 4.18% vs CFG's 2.64%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $36.50 | $72.42 | $57.56 | $30.78 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 12 | 38 | 54 | 52 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.6% | +4.2% | +3.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 5 | 3 | 10 | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.70 | $2.08 | $1.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +4.9% | +2.7% | +4.4% |
RF leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). CFG leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
BBT vs CFG vs TFC vs RF: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BBT or CFG or TFC or RF a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Beacon Financial Corp.
(BBT) is the stronger pick with 18. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -19. 0% for Truist Financial Corporation (TFC). Regions Financial Corporation (RF) offers the better valuation at 12. 2x trailing P/E (10. 7x 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 — BBT or CFG or TFC or RF?
On trailing P/E, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the cheapest at 12.
2x versus Beacon Financial Corp. at 28. 0x. On forward P/E, Beacon Financial Corp. is actually cheaper at 8. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BBT or CFG or TFC or RF?
Over the past 5 years, Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
(CFG) delivered a total return of +46. 9%, compared to -2. 7% for Truist Financial Corporation (TFC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RF returned +283. 3% versus BBT's +39. 1%. 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 — BBT or CFG or TFC or RF?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Beacon Financial Corp.
(BBT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 84β versus Citizens Financial Group, Inc. 's 1. 33β — meaning CFG is approximately 58% more volatile than BBT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 26% versus 98% for Truist Financial Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BBT or CFG or TFC or RF?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Beacon Financial Corp.
(BBT) is pulling ahead at 18. 0% versus -19. 0% for Truist Financial Corporation (TFC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Truist Financial Corporation grew EPS 408. 3% year-over-year, compared to -3. 2% for Citizens Financial Group, 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 — BBT or CFG or TFC or RF?
Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the more profitable company, earning 22.
4% net margin versus 11. 9% for Beacon Financial Corp. — meaning it keeps 22. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RF leads at 28. 5% versus -2. 5% for TFC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RF leads at 74. 6%, 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 BBT or CFG or TFC or RF more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Beacon Financial Corp.
(BBT) trades at 8. 3x forward P/E versus 12. 4x for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — 4. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BBT: 26. 4% to $36. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — BBT or CFG or TFC or RF?
In this comparison, TFC (4.
2% yield), RF (3. 7% yield), CFG (2. 6% yield) pay a dividend. BBT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is BBT or CFG or TFC or RF better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.
10), 3. 7% yield, +283. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RF: +283. 3%, BBT: +39. 1%), 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 BBT and CFG and TFC and RF?
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: BBT is a small-cap high-growth stock; CFG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; TFC is a mid-cap deep-value stock; RF is a mid-cap deep-value stock. CFG, TFC, RF pay a dividend while BBT 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.