Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
CBSH vs FULT vs WSFS vs UMBF
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
CBSH vs FULT vs WSFS vs UMBF — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $7.71B | $4.13B | $3.80B | $9.99B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.14B | $1.89B | $1.36B | $4.44B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $566M | $392M | $287M | $883M |
| Gross Margin | 80.0% | 67.4% | 74.7% | 54.4% |
| Operating Margin | 34.2% | 25.7% | 28.0% | 20.3% |
| Forward P/E | 13.0x | 10.6x | 11.8x | 10.3x |
| Total Debt | $3.00B | $1.30B | $303M | $3.80B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $803M | $271M | $1.33B | $953M |
CBSH vs FULT vs WSFS vs UMBF — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commerce Bancshares… (CBSH) | 100 | 105.1 | +5.1% |
| Fulton Financial Co… (FULT) | 100 | 191.3 | +91.3% |
| WSFS Financial Corp… (WSFS) | 100 | 260.4 | +160.4% |
| UMB Financial Corpo… (UMBF) | 100 | 255.8 | +155.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CBSH vs FULT vs WSFS vs UMBF
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CBSH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.70, yield 2.1%
- Beta 0.70 vs UMBF's 1.19
FULT is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and defensive.
- Rev growth 5.0%, EPS growth 32.5%
- Beta 1.13, yield 3.6%, current ratio 0.05x
- 3.6% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs UMBF's 1.4%
WSFS is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and valuation efficiency.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.89, Low D/E 11.1%, current ratio 0.08x
- PEG 0.67 vs CBSH's 1.15
- +37.7% vs CBSH's -13.9%
UMBF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding and bank quality.
- 165.1% 10Y total return vs WSFS's 129.0%
- NIM 3.5% vs FULT's 3.2%
- 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs WSFS's -3.1%
- Lower P/E (10.3x vs 13.0x), PEG 1.14 vs 1.15
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs WSFS's -3.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.3x vs 13.0x), PEG 1.14 vs 1.15 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs WSFS's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.70 vs UMBF's 1.19 | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs UMBF's 1.4% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +37.7% vs CBSH's -13.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs WSFS's 0.5% |
CBSH vs FULT vs WSFS vs UMBF — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CBSH vs FULT vs WSFS vs UMBF — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CBSH leads in 1 of 6 categories
FULT leads 1 • WSFS leads 1 • UMBF leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CBSH leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
UMBF is the larger business by revenue, generating $4.4B annually — 3.3x WSFS's $1.4B. CBSH is the more profitable business, keeping 26.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to UMBF's 15.8%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.1B | $1.9B | $1.4B | $4.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $796M | $529M | $408M | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $566M | $392M | $287M | $883M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $570M | $267M | $214M | $985M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +80.0% | +67.4% | +74.7% | +54.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +34.2% | +25.7% | +28.0% | +20.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +26.5% | +20.7% | +21.1% | +15.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +27.7% | +15.0% | +15.7% | +22.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +1.0% | +47.2% | +22.9% | +176.9% |
Valuation Metrics
FULT leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.3x trailing earnings, FULT trades at a 28% valuation discount to UMBF's 14.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FULT offers better value at 0.74x vs UMBF's 1.59x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $7.7B | $4.1B | $3.8B | $10.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $9.9B | $5.2B | $2.8B | $12.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 12.86x | 10.31x | 14.16x | 14.37x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 13.01x | 10.61x | 11.79x | 10.31x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.14x | 0.74x | 0.81x | 1.59x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.87x | 9.74x | 6.80x | 12.11x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.60x | 2.18x | 2.79x | 2.25x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.91x | 1.13x | 1.44x | 1.30x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 13.01x | 14.52x | 17.79x | 10.21x |
Profitability & Efficiency
WSFS leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CBSH delivers a 15.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $15 in annual profit, vs $11 for WSFS. WSFS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.11x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CBSH's 0.79x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), UMBF scores 7/9 vs WSFS's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +15.3% | +11.6% | +10.6% | +11.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.7% | +1.2% | +1.4% | +1.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.4% | +7.5% | +9.5% | +7.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.3% | +9.5% | +10.3% | +14.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.79x | 0.37x | 0.11x | 0.49x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.2B | $1.0B | -$1.0B | $2.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $803M | $271M | $1.3B | $953M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3.0B | $1.3B | $303M | $3.8B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.97x | 0.84x | 1.30x | 0.63x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — WSFS and UMBF each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WSFS five years ago would be worth $14,315 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,711 for CBSH. Over the past 12 months, WSFS leads with a +37.7% total return vs CBSH's -13.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors UMBF at 34.6% vs CBSH's 6.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +1.0% | +11.1% | +31.2% | +13.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -13.9% | +29.6% | +37.7% | +31.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +20.2% | +130.4% | +135.3% | +143.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -12.9% | +41.4% | +43.1% | +41.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +103.4% | +106.1% | +129.0% | +165.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +6.3% | +32.1% | +33.0% | +34.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CBSH and WSFS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CBSH is the less volatile stock with a 0.70 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. WSFS currently trades 98.4% from its 52-week high vs CBSH's 79.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.70x | 1.13x | 0.89x | 1.19x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $66.35 | $22.99 | $73.22 | $136.11 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $46.99 | $16.60 | $49.92 | $98.16 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +79.1% | +93.3% | +98.4% | +96.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 61.7 | 55.8 | 64.0 | 78.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.2M | 2.0M | 385K | 613K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FULT and UMBF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CBSH as "Hold", FULT as "Hold", WSFS as "Hold", UMBF as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 14.7% upside for UMBF (target: $150) vs 3.6% for WSFS (target: $75). For income investors, FULT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.59% vs WSFS's 0.95%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $58.50 | $24.00 | $74.67 | $150.40 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 20 | 13 | 18 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.1% | +3.6% | +0.9% | +1.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 12 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.08 | $0.77 | $0.68 | $1.77 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.7% | +1.6% | +7.6% | +1.3% |
CBSH leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). FULT leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
CBSH vs FULT vs WSFS vs UMBF: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CBSH or FULT or WSFS 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 -3. 1% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS). 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 UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) a "Buy" — based on 18 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 — CBSH or FULT or WSFS or UMBF?
On trailing P/E, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the cheapest at 10.
3x versus UMB Financial Corporation at 14. 4x. On forward P/E, UMB Financial Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 3x — 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: WSFS Financial Corporation wins at 0. 67x versus Commerce Bancshares, Inc. 's 1. 15x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CBSH or FULT or WSFS or UMBF?
Over the past 5 years, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) delivered a total return of +43.
1%, compared to -12. 9% for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (CBSH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UMBF returned +165. 1% versus CBSH's +103. 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 — CBSH or FULT or WSFS or UMBF?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
(CBSH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 70β versus UMB Financial Corporation's 1. 19β — meaning UMBF is approximately 69% more volatile than CBSH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 79% for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CBSH or FULT or WSFS or UMBF?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) is pulling ahead at 68.
5% versus -3. 1% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fulton Financial Corporation grew EPS 32. 5% year-over-year, compared to 1. 6% for UMB Financial 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 — CBSH or FULT or WSFS or UMBF?
Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
(CBSH) is the more profitable company, earning 26. 5% net margin versus 15. 8% for UMB Financial Corporation — meaning it keeps 26. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CBSH leads at 34. 2% versus 20. 3% for UMBF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CBSH leads at 80. 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 CBSH or FULT or WSFS 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, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 67x versus Commerce Bancshares, Inc. 's 1. 15x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) trades at 10. 3x forward P/E versus 13. 0x for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. — 2. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for UMBF: 14. 7% to $150. 40.
08Which pays a better dividend — CBSH or FULT or WSFS or UMBF?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) offers the highest yield at 3. 6%, versus 0. 9% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS).
09Is CBSH or FULT or WSFS or UMBF better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
(CBSH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 70), 2. 1% yield, +103. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CBSH: +103. 4%, UMBF: +165. 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 CBSH and FULT and WSFS 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: CBSH is a small-cap deep-value stock; FULT is a small-cap deep-value stock; WSFS is a small-cap deep-value stock; UMBF is a small-cap high-growth 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.