Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BUSE vs MBWM vs FULT vs IBCP vs SFNC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
BUSE vs MBWM vs FULT vs IBCP vs SFNC — 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 | $2.27B | $898M | $4.13B | $699M | $3.09B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.04B | $372M | $1.89B | $315M | $627M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $135M | $89M | $392M | $69M | $-398M |
| Gross Margin | 63.9% | 64.0% | 67.4% | 69.6% | 5.8% |
| Operating Margin | 17.9% | 27.5% | 25.7% | 25.8% | -84.2% |
| Forward P/E | 10.8x | 9.5x | 10.6x | 9.6x | 10.3x |
| Total Debt | $490M | $826M | $1.30B | $117M | $641M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $181M | $473M | $271M | $52M | $380M |
BUSE vs MBWM vs FULT vs IBCP vs SFNC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Busey Corpora… (BUSE) | 100 | 148.5 | +48.5% |
| Mercantile Bank Cor… (MBWM) | 100 | 226.7 | +126.7% |
| Fulton Financial Co… (FULT) | 100 | 191.3 | +91.3% |
| Independent Bank Co… (IBCP) | 100 | 245.7 | +145.7% |
| Simmons First Natio… (SFNC) | 100 | 124.5 | +24.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BUSE vs MBWM vs FULT vs IBCP vs SFNC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BUSE is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth is your priority.
- 57.6% NII/revenue growth vs SFNC's -56.7%
MBWM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.63 vs IBCP's 1.82
- Lower P/E (9.5x vs 9.6x), PEG 0.63 vs 1.82
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs SFNC's 0.9% (lower = leaner)
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs SFNC's 0.9%
FULT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 5.0%, EPS growth 32.5%
- +29.6% vs IBCP's +12.6%
IBCP is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 0.83, yield 3.0%
- 184.6% 10Y total return vs MBWM's 178.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.83, Low D/E 23.2%, current ratio 370.62x
- Beta 0.83, yield 3.0%, current ratio 370.62x
SFNC is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.
- 4.0% yield, 6-year raise streak, vs IBCP's 3.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 57.6% NII/revenue growth vs SFNC's -56.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.5x vs 9.6x), PEG 0.63 vs 1.82 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs SFNC's 0.9% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.83 vs FULT's 1.13, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.0% yield, 6-year raise streak, vs IBCP's 3.0% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +29.6% vs IBCP's +12.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs SFNC's 0.9% |
BUSE vs MBWM vs FULT vs IBCP vs SFNC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
BUSE vs MBWM vs FULT vs IBCP vs SFNC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
IBCP leads in 2 of 6 categories
MBWM leads 1 • SFNC leads 1 • BUSE leads 0 • FULT leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MBWM leads this category, winning 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FULT is the larger business by revenue, generating $1.9B annually — 6.0x IBCP's $315M. MBWM is the more profitable business, keeping 23.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SFNC's -63.4%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.0B | $372M | $1.9B | $315M | $627M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $220M | $107M | $529M | $89M | -$497M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $135M | $89M | $392M | $69M | -$398M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $172M | $11M | $267M | $70M | $755M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +63.9% | +64.0% | +67.4% | +69.6% | +5.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +17.9% | +27.5% | +25.7% | +25.8% | -84.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +13.0% | +23.9% | +20.7% | +21.7% | -63.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +16.6% | +3.0% | +15.0% | +22.2% | +71.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +28.6% | +14.8% | +47.2% | +2.3% | +42.1% |
Valuation Metrics
SFNC leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.5x trailing earnings, MBWM trades at a 47% valuation discount to BUSE's 18.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MBWM offers better value at 0.63x vs IBCP's 1.97x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.3B | $898M | $4.1B | $699M | $3.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.6B | $1.3B | $5.2B | $764M | $3.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 18.09x | 9.53x | 10.31x | 10.38x | -7.24x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 10.78x | 9.54x | 10.61x | 9.56x | 10.35x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.63x | 0.74x | 1.97x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.62x | 11.75x | 9.74x | 9.39x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.18x | 2.42x | 2.18x | 2.22x | 4.93x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.96x | 1.17x | 1.13x | 1.41x | 0.84x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 13.08x | 80.15x | 14.52x | 9.96x | 6.88x |
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 $-12 for SFNC. SFNC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.19x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MBWM's 1.14x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IBCP scores 8/9 vs SFNC's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +5.7% | +13.5% | +11.6% | +14.2% | -11.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.7% | +1.4% | +1.2% | +1.3% | -1.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.8% | +5.5% | +7.5% | +10.2% | -9.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.3% | +8.0% | +9.5% | +2.6% | -4.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.20x | 1.14x | 0.37x | 0.23x | 0.19x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $309M | $353M | $1.0B | $65M | $261M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $181M | $473M | $271M | $52M | $380M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $490M | $826M | $1.3B | $117M | $641M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.58x | 0.79x | 0.84x | 0.91x | -1.01x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IBCP leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MBWM five years ago would be worth $17,837 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,461 for SFNC. Over the past 12 months, FULT leads with a +29.6% total return vs IBCP's +12.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IBCP at 32.1% vs SFNC's 15.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +13.4% | +10.1% | +11.1% | +7.2% | +14.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +27.6% | +23.6% | +29.6% | +12.6% | +16.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +69.1% | +127.3% | +130.4% | +130.6% | +53.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +21.7% | +78.4% | +41.4% | +63.7% | -15.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +77.6% | +178.2% | +106.1% | +184.6% | +25.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +19.1% | +31.5% | +32.1% | +32.1% | +15.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — IBCP and SFNC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
IBCP is the less volatile stock with a 0.83 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FULT's 1.13 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. SFNC currently trades 96.3% 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 | 0.91x | 0.87x | 1.13x | 0.83x | 1.02x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $27.65 | $55.77 | $22.99 | $37.39 | $22.18 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $21.41 | $42.17 | $16.60 | $29.63 | $17.00 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +96.2% | +93.3% | +93.3% | +90.8% | +96.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 56.4 | 53.1 | 55.8 | 50.6 | 62.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 550K | 112K | 2.0M | 176K | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — IBCP and SFNC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BUSE as "Hold", MBWM as "Buy", FULT as "Hold", IBCP as "Hold", SFNC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 11.9% upside for IBCP (target: $38) vs 6.1% for SFNC (target: $23). For income investors, SFNC offers the higher dividend yield at 4.00% vs MBWM's 2.83%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $29.00 | $57.00 | $24.00 | $38.00 | $22.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 11 | 7 | 20 | 7 | 9 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.8% | +2.8% | +3.6% | +3.0% | +4.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 6 | 2 | 11 | 6 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.02 | $1.47 | $0.77 | $1.03 | $0.85 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +3.1% | 0.0% | +1.6% | +1.8% | 0.0% |
IBCP leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). MBWM leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
BUSE vs MBWM vs FULT vs IBCP vs SFNC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BUSE or MBWM or FULT or IBCP or SFNC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, First Busey Corporation (BUSE) is the stronger pick with 57.
6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -56. 7% for Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC). Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) offers the better valuation at 9. 5x trailing P/E (9. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 — BUSE or MBWM or FULT or IBCP or SFNC?
On trailing P/E, Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) is the cheapest at 9.
5x versus First Busey Corporation at 18. 1x. On forward P/E, Mercantile Bank Corporation is actually cheaper at 9. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Mercantile Bank Corporation wins at 0. 63x 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 — BUSE or MBWM or FULT or IBCP or SFNC?
Over the past 5 years, Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) delivered a total return of +78.
4%, compared to -15. 4% for Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IBCP returned +184. 6% versus SFNC's +25. 2%. 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 — BUSE or MBWM or FULT or IBCP or SFNC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
83β versus Fulton Financial Corporation's 1. 13β — meaning FULT is approximately 37% more volatile than IBCP relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 19% versus 114% for Mercantile Bank Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BUSE or MBWM or FULT or IBCP or SFNC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), First Busey Corporation (BUSE) is pulling ahead at 57.
6% versus -56. 7% for Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fulton Financial Corporation grew EPS 32. 5% year-over-year, compared to -343. 8% for Simmons First National 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.
06Which has better profit margins — BUSE or MBWM or FULT or IBCP or SFNC?
Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) is the more profitable company, earning 23.
9% net margin versus -63. 4% for Simmons First National Corporation — meaning it keeps 23. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MBWM leads at 27. 5% versus -84. 2% for SFNC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IBCP leads at 69. 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 BUSE or MBWM or FULT or IBCP or SFNC 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, Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 63x 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, Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) trades at 9. 5x forward P/E versus 10. 8x for First Busey Corporation — 1. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IBCP: 11. 9% to $38. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — BUSE or MBWM or FULT or IBCP or SFNC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) offers the highest yield at 4. 0%, versus 2. 8% for Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM).
09Is BUSE or MBWM or FULT or IBCP or SFNC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
83), 3. 0% yield, +184. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (IBCP: +184. 6%, FULT: +106. 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 BUSE and MBWM and FULT and IBCP and SFNC?
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: BUSE is a small-cap high-growth stock; MBWM is a small-cap deep-value stock; FULT is a small-cap deep-value stock; IBCP is a small-cap deep-value stock; SFNC is a small-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.