Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BCML vs BANR vs CVBF vs WAFD vs FIS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Information Technology Services
BCML vs BANR vs CVBF vs WAFD vs FIS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Information Technology Services |
| Market Cap | $333M | $2.22B | $2.78B | $2.73B | $24.47B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $142M | $819M | $643M | $1.41B | $10.89B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $24M | $195M | $209M | $243M | $382M |
| Gross Margin | 68.4% | 79.0% | 79.9% | 50.9% | 38.1% |
| Operating Margin | 23.2% | 29.5% | 43.8% | 20.5% | 17.5% |
| Forward P/E | 11.3x | 10.5x | 14.1x | 10.9x | 6.9x |
| Total Debt | $22M | $373M | $991M | $1.82B | $4.01B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $27M | $183M | $108M | $657M | $599M |
BCML vs BANR vs CVBF vs WAFD vs FIS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| BayCom Corp (BCML) | 100 | 234.7 | +134.7% |
| Banner Corporation (BANR) | 100 | 174.8 | +74.8% |
| CVB Financial Corp. (CVBF) | 100 | 104.2 | +4.2% |
| WaFd, Inc. (WAFD) | 100 | 137.5 | +37.5% |
| Fidelity National I… (FIS) | 100 | 31.3 | -68.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BCML vs BANR vs CVBF vs WAFD vs FIS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BCML ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 176.6% 10Y total return vs BANR's 101.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.62, Low D/E 6.6%, current ratio 55.06x
- NIM 3.6% vs WAFD's 2.5%
- Beta 0.62 vs CVBF's 0.94, lower leverage
BANR is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth -0.9%, EPS growth 15.6%
CVBF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.94, yield 4.0%
- 32.5% margin vs FIS's 3.5%
- 4.0% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs WAFD's 3.0%
- 1.4% ROA vs BCML's 0.9%, ROIC 6.8% vs 6.4%
WAFD is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +28.5% vs FIS's -35.3%
FIS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if valuation efficiency and defensive is your priority.
- PEG 0.28 vs CVBF's 4.44
- Beta 0.76, yield 3.5%, current ratio 0.59x
- 5.4% revenue growth vs CVBF's -2.3%
- Lower P/E (6.9x vs 14.1x), PEG 0.28 vs 4.44
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 5.4% revenue growth vs CVBF's -2.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.9x vs 14.1x), PEG 0.28 vs 4.44 | |
| Quality / Margins | 32.5% margin vs FIS's 3.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.62 vs CVBF's 0.94, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.0% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs WAFD's 3.0% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +28.5% vs FIS's -35.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.4% ROA vs BCML's 0.9%, ROIC 6.8% vs 6.4% |
BCML vs BANR vs CVBF vs WAFD vs FIS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
BCML vs BANR vs CVBF vs WAFD vs FIS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BCML leads in 2 of 6 categories
CVBF leads 1 • BANR leads 1 • WAFD leads 0 • FIS leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CVBF leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FIS is the larger business by revenue, generating $10.9B annually — 76.8x BCML's $142M. CVBF is the more profitable business, keeping 32.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FIS's 3.5%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $142M | $819M | $643M | $1.4B | $10.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $36M | $253M | $294M | $277M | $3.8B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $24M | $195M | $209M | $243M | $382M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $45M | $248M | $217M | $226M | $2.8B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +68.4% | +79.0% | +79.9% | +50.9% | +38.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +23.2% | +29.5% | +43.8% | +20.5% | +17.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +16.9% | +23.8% | +32.5% | +16.0% | +3.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +20.4% | +30.3% | +33.8% | +14.8% | +26.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | +8.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +14.5% | +11.2% | +11.1% | +46.3% | +92.3% |
Valuation Metrics
BANR leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 11.6x trailing earnings, BANR trades at a 82% valuation discount to FIS's 63.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), BANR offers better value at 1.00x vs WAFD's 4.41x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $333M | $2.2B | $2.8B | $2.7B | $24.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $328M | $2.4B | $3.7B | $3.9B | $27.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 13.98x | 11.63x | 13.49x | 13.56x | 63.00x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.35x | 10.51x | 14.12x | 10.89x | 6.94x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.02x | 1.00x | 4.25x | 4.41x | 2.58x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.10x | 9.55x | 13.02x | 12.98x | 7.66x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.34x | 2.71x | 4.33x | 1.93x | 2.29x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.98x | 1.16x | 1.21x | 0.94x | 1.76x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 11.51x | 8.96x | 12.81x | 13.09x | 9.97x |
Profitability & Efficiency
BCML leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
BANR delivers a 10.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $10 in annual profit, vs $3 for FIS. BCML carries lower financial leverage with a 0.07x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WAFD's 0.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BCML scores 8/9 vs FIS's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +7.2% | +10.3% | +9.3% | +8.0% | +2.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.9% | +1.2% | +1.4% | +1.0% | +1.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.4% | +7.7% | +6.8% | +3.9% | +6.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.2% | +10.1% | +9.3% | +5.7% | +6.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.07x | 0.19x | 0.43x | 0.60x | 0.29x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$4M | $190M | $883M | $1.2B | $3.4B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $27M | $183M | $108M | $657M | $599M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $22M | $373M | $991M | $1.8B | $4.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.80x | 1.11x | 2.12x | 0.48x | 4.64x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
BCML leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in BCML five years ago would be worth $18,341 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,685 for FIS. Over the past 12 months, WAFD leads with a +28.5% total return vs FIS's -35.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors BCML at 28.4% vs FIS's -2.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +6.8% | +6.6% | +10.9% | +11.9% | -27.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +19.7% | +9.1% | +13.1% | +28.5% | -35.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +111.9% | +60.7% | +94.0% | +51.6% | -6.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +83.4% | +29.6% | +12.2% | +22.5% | -63.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +176.6% | +101.1% | +67.6% | +84.4% | -13.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +28.4% | +17.1% | +24.7% | +14.9% | -2.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BCML and WAFD each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BCML is the less volatile stock with a 0.62 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CVBF's 0.94 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WAFD currently trades 98.8% from its 52-week high vs FIS's 57.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.61x | 0.79x | 0.92x | 0.79x | 0.65x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $33.15 | $69.83 | $21.48 | $36.12 | $82.74 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $25.84 | $57.05 | $17.95 | $26.31 | $43.30 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.9% | +93.9% | +95.5% | +98.8% | +57.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.9 | 58.0 | 57.9 | 68.3 | 43.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 36K | 292K | 1.6M | 661K | 5.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CVBF and WAFD each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BCML as "Buy", BANR as "Hold", CVBF as "Hold", WAFD as "Hold", FIS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 42.1% upside for FIS (target: $67) vs -1.9% for WAFD (target: $35). For income investors, CVBF offers the higher dividend yield at 3.98% vs BCML's 1.99%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $34.00 | $70.00 | $24.75 | $35.00 | $67.14 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 5 | 13 | 16 | 11 | 37 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.0% | +3.0% | +4.0% | +3.0% | +3.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.61 | $1.96 | $0.82 | $1.05 | $1.63 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.1% | +1.6% | +2.9% | +3.7% | 0.0% |
BCML leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). CVBF leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
BCML vs BANR vs CVBF vs WAFD vs FIS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BCML or BANR or CVBF or WAFD or FIS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
(FIS) is the stronger pick with 5. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 3% for CVB Financial Corp. (CVBF). Banner Corporation (BANR) offers the better valuation at 11. 6x trailing P/E (10. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate BayCom Corp (BCML) a "Buy" — based on 5 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 — BCML or BANR or CVBF or WAFD or FIS?
On trailing P/E, Banner Corporation (BANR) is the cheapest at 11.
6x versus Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. at 63. 0x. On forward P/E, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 9x — 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: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. wins at 0. 28x versus CVB Financial Corp. 's 4. 44x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BCML or BANR or CVBF or WAFD or FIS?
Over the past 5 years, BayCom Corp (BCML) delivered a total return of +83.
4%, compared to -63. 2% for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BCML returned +180. 5% versus FIS's -18. 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 — BCML or BANR or CVBF or WAFD or FIS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), BayCom Corp (BCML) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
61β versus CVB Financial Corp. 's 0. 92β — meaning CVBF is approximately 52% more volatile than BCML relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, BayCom Corp (BCML) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 60% for WaFd, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BCML or BANR or CVBF or WAFD or FIS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
(FIS) is pulling ahead at 5. 4% versus -2. 3% for CVB Financial Corp. (CVBF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Banner Corporation grew EPS 15. 6% year-over-year, compared to -47. 2% for Fidelity National Information Services, 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 — BCML or BANR or CVBF or WAFD or FIS?
CVB Financial Corp.
(CVBF) is the more profitable company, earning 32. 5% net margin versus 3. 6% for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. — meaning it keeps 32. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CVBF leads at 43. 8% versus 16. 5% for FIS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CVBF leads at 79. 9%, 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 BCML or BANR or CVBF or WAFD or FIS 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, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 28x versus CVB Financial Corp. 's 4. 44x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS) trades at 6. 9x forward P/E versus 14. 1x for CVB Financial Corp. — 7. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FIS: 42. 1% to $67. 14.
08Which pays a better dividend — BCML or BANR or CVBF or WAFD or FIS?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
CVB Financial Corp. (CVBF) offers the highest yield at 4. 0%, versus 2. 0% for BayCom Corp (BCML).
09Is BCML or BANR or CVBF or WAFD or FIS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, BayCom Corp (BCML) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
61), 2. 0% yield, +180. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BCML: +180. 5%, CVBF: +66. 5%), 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 BCML and BANR and CVBF and WAFD and FIS?
These companies operate in different sectors (BCML (Financial Services) and BANR (Financial Services) and CVBF (Financial Services) and WAFD (Financial Services) and FIS (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BCML is a small-cap deep-value stock; BANR is a small-cap deep-value stock; CVBF is a small-cap deep-value stock; WAFD is a small-cap deep-value stock; FIS is a mid-cap income-oriented 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.