Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BWFG vs NBTB vs CZWI vs TRST vs FIS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Information Technology Services
BWFG vs NBTB vs CZWI vs TRST 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 | $415M | $2.35B | $203M | $858M | $24.47B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $208M | $867M | $90M | $278M | $10.89B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $35M | $169M | $14M | $61M | $382M |
| Gross Margin | 51.6% | 72.1% | 54.7% | 67.1% | 38.1% |
| Operating Margin | 23.3% | 25.3% | 7.0% | 29.2% | 17.5% |
| Forward P/E | 9.6x | 10.8x | 11.8x | 16.9x | 7.5x |
| Total Debt | $180M | $327M | $52M | $193M | $4.01B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $225M | $185M | $119M | $51M | $599M |
BWFG vs NBTB vs CZWI vs TRST vs FIS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bankwell Financial … (BWFG) | 100 | 355.9 | +255.9% |
| NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) | 100 | 143.9 | +43.9% |
| Citizens Community … (CZWI) | 100 | 286.8 | +186.8% |
| TrustCo Bank Corp NY (TRST) | 100 | 153.7 | +53.7% |
| Fidelity National I… (FIS) | 100 | 34.0 | -66.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BWFG vs NBTB vs CZWI vs TRST vs FIS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BWFG is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 6.1%, EPS growth 261.8%
- 175.8% 10Y total return vs CZWI's 157.0%
- PEG 0.22 vs TRST's 4.66
NBTB ranks third and is worth considering specifically for bank quality.
- NIM 3.1% vs TRST's 2.6%
- 10.4% NII/revenue growth vs CZWI's -9.4%
CZWI is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.46, Low D/E 27.6%, current ratio 3015.31x
- Beta 0.46, yield 1.8%, current ratio 3015.31x
- Beta 0.46 vs NBTB's 0.89
TRST is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 8 yrs, beta 0.75, yield 3.1%
- 22.0% margin vs FIS's 3.5%
- +60.3% vs FIS's -35.3%
FIS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and dividends.
- Lower P/E (7.5x vs 16.9x), PEG 0.31 vs 4.66
- 3.5% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs NBTB's 3.2%
- 1.1% ROA vs CZWI's 0.8%, ROIC 6.0% vs 2.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.4% NII/revenue growth vs CZWI's -9.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.5x vs 16.9x), PEG 0.31 vs 4.66 | |
| Quality / Margins | 22.0% margin vs FIS's 3.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.46 vs NBTB's 0.89 | |
| Dividends | 3.5% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs NBTB's 3.2% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +60.3% vs FIS's -35.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.1% ROA vs CZWI's 0.8%, ROIC 6.0% vs 2.0% |
BWFG vs NBTB vs CZWI vs TRST vs FIS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
BWFG vs NBTB vs CZWI vs TRST vs FIS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
TRST leads in 1 of 6 categories
BWFG leads 1 • FIS leads 1 • CZWI leads 1 • NBTB leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TRST leads this category, winning 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FIS is the larger business by revenue, generating $10.9B annually — 121.0x CZWI's $90M. TRST is the more profitable business, keeping 22.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FIS's 3.5%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $208M | $867M | $90M | $278M | $10.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $53M | $241M | $9M | $90M | $3.8B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $35M | $169M | $14M | $61M | $382M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$5M | $225M | $11M | $46M | $2.8B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +51.6% | +72.1% | +54.7% | +67.1% | +38.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +23.3% | +25.3% | +7.0% | +29.2% | +17.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +16.9% | +19.5% | +16.0% | +22.0% | +3.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +12.6% | +25.2% | +11.5% | +16.4% | +26.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | +8.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.1% | +39.5% | +63.0% | +44.1% | +92.3% |
Valuation Metrics
BWFG leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 11.7x trailing earnings, BWFG trades at a 81% valuation discount to FIS's 63.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), BWFG offers better value at 0.27x vs TRST's 4.11x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $415M | $2.4B | $203M | $858M | $24.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $370M | $2.5B | $136M | $1000M | $27.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 11.71x | 13.53x | 14.44x | 14.90x | 63.00x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 9.62x | 10.80x | 11.78x | 16.87x | 7.54x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.27x | 1.92x | 2.85x | 4.11x | 2.58x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.04x | 10.35x | 15.28x | 11.14x | 7.66x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.00x | 2.71x | 2.25x | 3.08x | 2.29x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.35x | 1.21x | 1.09x | 1.29x | 1.76x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 15.90x | 10.75x | 19.55x | 18.75x | 9.97x |
Profitability & Efficiency
FIS leads this category, winning 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
BWFG delivers a 12.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $12 in annual profit, vs $3 for FIS. NBTB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.17x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to BWFG's 0.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NBTB scores 7/9 vs FIS's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +12.2% | +9.5% | +7.8% | +8.9% | +2.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.1% | +1.1% | +0.8% | +1.0% | +1.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.0% | +7.9% | +2.0% | +7.2% | +6.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +4.4% | +2.4% | +0.6% | +2.8% | +6.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.60x | 0.17x | 0.28x | 0.28x | 0.29x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$45M | $142M | -$67M | $142M | $3.4B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $225M | $185M | $119M | $51M | $599M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $180M | $327M | $52M | $193M | $4.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.49x | 1.05x | 0.16x | 0.90x | 4.64x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CZWI leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in BWFG five years ago would be worth $19,208 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,685 for FIS. Over the past 12 months, TRST leads with a +60.3% total return vs FIS's -35.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CZWI at 37.5% vs FIS's -2.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +16.1% | +9.3% | +21.5% | +18.2% | -27.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +55.7% | +9.0% | +45.6% | +60.3% | -35.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +144.3% | +54.1% | +160.0% | +88.2% | -6.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +92.1% | +29.9% | +71.2% | +46.5% | -63.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +175.8% | +102.2% | +157.0% | +97.2% | -13.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +34.7% | +15.5% | +37.5% | +23.5% | -2.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CZWI and TRST each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CZWI is the less volatile stock with a 0.46 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NBTB's 0.89 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TRST currently trades 98.6% 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 | 0.84x | 0.89x | 0.46x | 0.75x | 0.76x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $53.86 | $46.92 | $22.62 | $49.11 | $82.74 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $33.26 | $39.20 | $12.83 | $30.17 | $43.30 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +96.8% | +96.1% | +93.2% | +98.6% | +57.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.8 | 57.3 | 63.7 | 64.5 | 43.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 40K | 236K | 40K | 112K | 5.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — NBTB and FIS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BWFG as "Buy", NBTB as "Hold", CZWI as "Buy", TRST as "Hold", FIS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 42.6% upside for FIS (target: $67) vs 2.1% for NBTB (target: $46). For income investors, FIS offers the higher dividend yield at 3.45% vs BWFG's 1.54%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $46.00 | — | — | $67.38 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 3 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 37 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.5% | +3.2% | +1.8% | +3.1% | +3.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 12 | 7 | 8 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.80 | $1.43 | $0.37 | $1.51 | $1.63 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.3% | +0.4% | +3.1% | +4.4% | 0.0% |
TRST leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). BWFG leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
BWFG vs NBTB vs CZWI vs TRST vs FIS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BWFG or NBTB or CZWI or TRST or FIS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, NBT Bancorp Inc.
(NBTB) is the stronger pick with 10. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 4% for Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. (CZWI). Bankwell Financial Group, Inc. (BWFG) offers the better valuation at 11. 7x trailing P/E (9. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Bankwell Financial Group, Inc. (BWFG) a "Buy" — based on 3 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 — BWFG or NBTB or CZWI or TRST or FIS?
On trailing P/E, Bankwell Financial Group, Inc.
(BWFG) is the cheapest at 11. 7x versus Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. at 63. 0x. On forward P/E, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 5x — 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: Bankwell Financial Group, Inc. wins at 0. 22x versus TrustCo Bank Corp NY's 4. 66x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BWFG or NBTB or CZWI or TRST or FIS?
Over the past 5 years, Bankwell Financial Group, Inc.
(BWFG) delivered a total return of +92. 1%, compared to -63. 2% for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BWFG returned +175. 8% versus FIS's -13. 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 — BWFG or NBTB or CZWI or TRST or FIS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc.
(CZWI) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 46β versus NBT Bancorp Inc. 's 0. 89β — meaning NBTB is approximately 94% more volatile than CZWI relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 60% for Bankwell Financial Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BWFG or NBTB or CZWI or TRST or FIS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), NBT Bancorp Inc.
(NBTB) is pulling ahead at 10. 4% versus -9. 4% for Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. (CZWI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Bankwell Financial Group, Inc. grew EPS 261. 8% 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 — BWFG or NBTB or CZWI or TRST or FIS?
TrustCo Bank Corp NY (TRST) is the more profitable company, earning 22.
0% net margin versus 3. 6% for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. — meaning it keeps 22. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TRST leads at 29. 2% versus 7. 0% for CZWI. 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 BWFG or NBTB or CZWI or TRST 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, Bankwell Financial Group, Inc. (BWFG) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 22x versus TrustCo Bank Corp NY's 4. 66x. 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 7. 5x forward P/E versus 16. 9x for TrustCo Bank Corp NY — 9. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FIS: 42. 6% to $67. 38.
08Which pays a better dividend — BWFG or NBTB or CZWI or TRST or FIS?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS) offers the highest yield at 3. 5%, versus 1. 5% for Bankwell Financial Group, Inc. (BWFG).
09Is BWFG or NBTB or CZWI or TRST or FIS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc.
(CZWI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 46), 1. 8% yield, +157. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CZWI: +157. 0%, NBTB: +102. 2%), 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 BWFG and NBTB and CZWI and TRST and FIS?
These companies operate in different sectors (BWFG (Financial Services) and NBTB (Financial Services) and CZWI (Financial Services) and TRST (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: BWFG is a small-cap deep-value stock; NBTB is a small-cap deep-value stock; CZWI is a small-cap deep-value stock; TRST 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.