Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
CFG vs MTB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
CFG vs MTB — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $27.70B | $32.74B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $12.35B | $13.40B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.70B | $2.77B |
| Gross Margin | 57.6% | 64.3% |
| Operating Margin | 15.3% | 24.7% |
| Forward P/E | 12.4x | 11.4x |
| Total Debt | $12.40B | $13.66B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $11.24B | $20.78B |
CFG vs MTB — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citizens Financial … (CFG) | 100 | 266.4 | +166.4% |
| M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) | 100 | 201.6 | +101.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CFG vs MTB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CFG is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and defensive.
- 257.8% 10Y total return vs MTB's 125.8%
- Beta 1.33, yield 2.6%, current ratio 0.25x
- 2.6% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs MTB's 2.5%
MTB carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 9 yrs, beta 0.93, yield 2.5%
- Rev growth 7.2%, EPS growth -7.3%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.93, Low D/E 47.1%, current ratio 0.22x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 7.2% NII/revenue growth vs CFG's 1.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.4x vs 12.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs CFG's 0.4% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.93 vs CFG's 1.33, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.6% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs MTB's 2.5% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +73.3% vs MTB's +25.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs CFG's 0.4% |
CFG vs MTB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CFG vs MTB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MTB leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MTB and CFG operate at a comparable scale, with $13.4B and $12.3B in trailing revenue. MTB is the more profitable business, keeping 19.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CFG's 12.2%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $12.3B | $13.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2.6B | $4.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.7B | $2.8B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $2.7B | $4.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +57.6% | +64.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +15.3% | +24.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +12.2% | +19.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.2% | +25.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +38.2% | +19.9% |
Valuation Metrics
MTB leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.6x trailing earnings, MTB trades at a 31% valuation discount to CFG's 21.2x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, MTB's 6.7x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than CFG's 12.1x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $27.7B | $32.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $28.9B | $25.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 21.19x | 14.55x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 12.39x | 11.43x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 11.53x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.10x | 6.71x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.24x | 2.44x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.20x | 1.23x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 14.74x | 9.65x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MTB leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MTB delivers a 9.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $10 in annual profit, vs $7 for CFG. MTB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.47x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CFG's 0.51x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CFG scores 7/9 vs MTB's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +6.6% | +9.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.8% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.8% | +6.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +4.4% | +8.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.51x | 0.47x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.2B | -$7.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $11.2B | $20.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $12.4B | $13.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.55x | 0.98x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CFG leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CFG five years ago would be worth $14,687 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $14,647 for MTB. Over the past 12 months, CFG leads with a +73.3% total return vs MTB's +25.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CFG at 39.1% vs MTB's 25.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +9.7% | +5.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +73.3% | +25.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +169.3% | +97.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +46.9% | +46.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +257.8% | +125.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +39.1% | +25.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CFG and MTB each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MTB is the less volatile stock with a 0.93 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CFG's 1.33 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CFG currently trades 93.3% from its 52-week high vs MTB's 89.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.33x | 0.93x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $68.79 | $239.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $37.93 | $172.95 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.3% | +89.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 60.2 | 53.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 4.5M | 1.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CFG and MTB each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates CFG as "Buy" and MTB as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 12.8% upside for CFG (target: $72) vs 11.6% for MTB (target: $238). For income investors, CFG offers the higher dividend yield at 2.64% vs MTB's 2.51%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $72.42 | $237.71 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 38 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.6% | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 9 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.70 | $5.35 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +4.9% | +2.3% |
MTB leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). CFG leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
CFG vs MTB: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CFG or MTB a better buy right now?
For growth investors, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the stronger pick with 7.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 3% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG). M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) offers the better valuation at 14. 6x trailing P/E (11. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG) a "Buy" — based on 38 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 — CFG or MTB?
On trailing P/E, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the cheapest at 14.
6x versus Citizens Financial Group, Inc. at 21. 2x. On forward P/E, M&T Bank Corporation is actually cheaper at 11. 4x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CFG or MTB?
Over the past 5 years, Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
(CFG) delivered a total return of +46. 9%, compared to +46. 5% for M&T Bank Corporation (MTB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CFG returned +257. 8% versus MTB's +125. 8%. 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 — CFG or MTB?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
93β versus Citizens Financial Group, Inc. 's 1. 33β — meaning CFG is approximately 43% more volatile than MTB relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 47% versus 51% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CFG or MTB?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is pulling ahead at 7.
2% versus 1. 3% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Citizens Financial Group, Inc. grew EPS -3. 2% year-over-year, compared to -7. 3% for M&T Bank 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 — CFG or MTB?
M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the more profitable company, earning 19.
3% net margin versus 12. 2% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 19. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MTB leads at 24. 7% versus 15. 3% for CFG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MTB leads at 64. 3%, 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 CFG or MTB more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) trades at 11.
4x forward P/E versus 12. 4x for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — 1. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CFG: 12. 8% to $72. 42.
08Which pays a better dividend — CFG or MTB?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG) offers the highest yield at 2. 6%, versus 2. 5% for M&T Bank Corporation (MTB).
09Is CFG or MTB better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
93), 2. 5% yield, +125. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MTB: +125. 8%, CFG: +257. 8%), 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 CFG and MTB?
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: CFG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MTB is a mid-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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.