Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CBU vs FULT vs TRMK vs NBTB vs IBCP
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
CBU vs FULT vs TRMK vs NBTB vs IBCP — 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 | $3.35B | $4.13B | $2.64B | $2.35B | $699M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $929M | $1.89B | $1.12B | $867M | $315M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $210M | $392M | $224M | $169M | $69M |
| Gross Margin | 73.4% | 67.4% | 71.0% | 72.1% | 69.6% |
| Operating Margin | 31.4% | 25.7% | 25.5% | 25.3% | 25.8% |
| Forward P/E | 13.5x | 10.6x | 11.5x | 10.8x | 9.6x |
| Total Debt | $747M | $1.30B | $1.12B | $327M | $117M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $302M | $271M | $668M | $185M | $52M |
CBU vs FULT vs TRMK vs NBTB vs IBCP — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community Bank Syst… (CBU) | 100 | 107.4 | +7.4% |
| Fulton Financial Co… (FULT) | 100 | 191.3 | +91.3% |
| Trustmark Corporati… (TRMK) | 100 | 188.7 | +88.7% |
| NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) | 100 | 143.9 | +43.9% |
| Independent Bank Co… (IBCP) | 100 | 245.7 | +145.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CBU vs FULT vs TRMK vs NBTB vs IBCP
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CBU lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
FULT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 5.0%, EPS growth 32.5%
- PEG 0.76 vs CBU's 2.57
- Lower P/E (10.6x vs 10.8x), PEG 0.76 vs 1.53
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs NBTB's 0.5% (lower = leaner)
TRMK is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if bank quality is your priority.
- NIM 3.4% vs CBU's 2.9%
- 34.8% NII/revenue growth vs CBU's -1.3%
- +32.5% vs NBTB's +9.0%
NBTB is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.89, yield 3.2%
IBCP ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 184.6% 10Y total return vs TRMK's 127.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.83, Low D/E 23.2%, current ratio 370.62x
- Beta 0.83, yield 3.0%, current ratio 370.62x
- Beta 0.83 vs FULT's 1.13, lower leverage
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 34.8% NII/revenue growth vs CBU's -1.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.6x vs 10.8x), PEG 0.76 vs 1.53 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs NBTB's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.83 vs FULT's 1.13, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs NBTB's 3.2% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +32.5% vs NBTB's +9.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs NBTB's 0.5% |
CBU vs FULT vs TRMK vs NBTB vs IBCP — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
CBU vs FULT vs TRMK vs NBTB vs IBCP — 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
CBU leads 1 • FULT leads 1 • TRMK leads 0 • NBTB leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CBU leads this category, winning 3 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. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 22.7% (CBU) to 19.5% (NBTB).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $929M | $1.9B | $1.1B | $867M | $315M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $317M | $529M | $323M | $241M | $89M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $210M | $392M | $224M | $169M | $69M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $218M | $267M | $230M | $225M | $70M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +73.4% | +67.4% | +71.0% | +72.1% | +69.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +31.4% | +25.7% | +25.5% | +25.3% | +25.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +22.7% | +20.7% | +20.0% | +19.5% | +21.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +25.1% | +15.0% | +20.7% | +25.2% | +22.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.7% | +47.2% | +5.4% | +39.5% | +2.3% |
Valuation Metrics
FULT leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.3x trailing earnings, FULT trades at a 36% valuation discount to CBU's 16.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FULT offers better value at 0.74x vs CBU's 3.05x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3.4B | $4.1B | $2.6B | $2.4B | $699M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.8B | $5.2B | $3.1B | $2.5B | $764M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 16.03x | 10.31x | 12.13x | 13.53x | 10.38x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 13.53x | 10.61x | 11.50x | 10.80x | 9.56x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 3.05x | 0.74x | 1.50x | 1.92x | 1.97x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 11.97x | 9.74x | 9.49x | 10.35x | 9.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.61x | 2.18x | 2.36x | 2.71x | 2.22x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.78x | 1.13x | 1.28x | 1.21x | 1.41x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 14.37x | 14.52x | 11.39x | 10.75x | 9.96x |
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 $10 for NBTB. NBTB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.17x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TRMK's 0.53x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IBCP scores 8/9 vs FULT's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.0% | +11.6% | +10.8% | +9.5% | +14.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.1% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.9% | +7.5% | +7.1% | +7.9% | +10.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.0% | +9.5% | +3.2% | +2.4% | +2.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.37x | 0.37x | 0.53x | 0.17x | 0.23x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $445M | $1.0B | $448M | $142M | $65M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $302M | $271M | $668M | $185M | $52M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $747M | $1.3B | $1.1B | $327M | $117M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.51x | 0.84x | 0.75x | 1.05x | 0.91x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IBCP leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IBCP five years ago would be worth $16,369 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,990 for CBU. Over the past 12 months, TRMK leads with a +32.5% total return vs NBTB's +9.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IBCP at 32.1% vs CBU's 13.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +10.6% | +11.1% | +15.5% | +9.3% | +7.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +17.5% | +29.6% | +32.5% | +9.0% | +12.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +45.8% | +130.4% | +118.5% | +54.1% | +130.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -10.1% | +41.4% | +47.6% | +29.9% | +63.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +107.2% | +106.1% | +127.7% | +102.2% | +184.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +13.4% | +32.1% | +29.8% | +15.5% | +32.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TRMK and IBCP 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. TRMK currently trades 97.6% 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 | 0.88x | 1.13x | 0.94x | 0.89x | 0.83x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $67.50 | $22.99 | $45.99 | $46.92 | $37.39 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $51.12 | $16.60 | $33.39 | $39.20 | $29.63 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +94.5% | +93.3% | +97.6% | +96.1% | +90.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 61.1 | 55.8 | 56.0 | 57.3 | 50.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 220K | 2.0M | 392K | 236K | 176K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FULT and NBTB each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CBU as "Hold", FULT as "Hold", TRMK as "Hold", NBTB as "Hold", IBCP as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 11.9% upside for IBCP (target: $38) vs 1.4% for TRMK (target: $46). For income investors, FULT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.59% vs TRMK's 2.15%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $68.50 | $24.00 | $45.50 | $46.00 | $38.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 12 | 20 | 9 | 10 | 7 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.7% | +3.6% | +2.2% | +3.2% | +3.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.74 | $0.77 | $0.97 | $1.43 | $1.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.3% | +1.6% | +3.0% | +0.4% | +1.8% |
IBCP leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). CBU leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
CBU vs FULT vs TRMK vs NBTB vs IBCP: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CBU or FULT or TRMK or NBTB or IBCP a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Trustmark Corporation (TRMK) is the stronger pick with 34.
8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 3% for Community Bank System, Inc. (CBU). 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 Community Bank System, Inc. (CBU) a "Hold" — based on 12 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 — CBU or FULT or TRMK or NBTB or IBCP?
On trailing P/E, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the cheapest at 10.
3x versus Community Bank System, Inc. at 16. 0x. On forward P/E, Independent Bank Corporation is actually cheaper at 9. 6x — 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: Fulton Financial Corporation wins at 0. 76x versus Community Bank System, Inc. 's 2. 57x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CBU or FULT or TRMK or NBTB or IBCP?
Over the past 5 years, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) delivered a total return of +63.
7%, compared to -10. 1% for Community Bank System, Inc. (CBU). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IBCP returned +184. 6% versus NBTB's +102. 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 — CBU or FULT or TRMK or NBTB or IBCP?
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, NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 53% for Trustmark Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CBU or FULT or TRMK or NBTB or IBCP?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Trustmark Corporation (TRMK) is pulling ahead at 34.
8% versus -1. 3% for Community Bank System, Inc. (CBU). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fulton Financial Corporation grew EPS 32. 5% year-over-year, compared to 1. 9% for Trustmark 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 — CBU or FULT or TRMK or NBTB or IBCP?
Community Bank System, Inc.
(CBU) is the more profitable company, earning 22. 7% net margin versus 19. 5% for NBT Bancorp Inc. — meaning it keeps 22. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CBU leads at 31. 4% versus 25. 3% for NBTB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CBU leads at 73. 4%, 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 CBU or FULT or TRMK or NBTB or IBCP 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, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 76x versus Community Bank System, Inc. 's 2. 57x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) trades at 9. 6x forward P/E versus 13. 5x for Community Bank System, Inc. — 4. 0x 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 — CBU or FULT or TRMK or NBTB or IBCP?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) offers the highest yield at 3. 6%, versus 2. 2% for Trustmark Corporation (TRMK).
09Is CBU or FULT or TRMK or NBTB or IBCP 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 CBU and FULT and TRMK and NBTB and IBCP?
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: CBU is a small-cap deep-value stock; FULT is a small-cap deep-value stock; TRMK is a small-cap high-growth stock; NBTB is a small-cap deep-value stock; IBCP is a small-cap deep-value 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.