Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CFG vs RF vs HBAN vs KEY vs MTB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
CFG vs RF vs HBAN vs KEY vs MTB — 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 | $27.70B | $24.27B | $25.63B | $23.90B | $32.74B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $12.35B | $9.61B | $12.48B | $11.19B | $13.40B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.70B | $2.16B | $2.21B | $1.83B | $2.77B |
| Gross Margin | 57.6% | 74.6% | 61.7% | 62.3% | 64.3% |
| Operating Margin | 15.3% | 28.5% | 21.5% | 20.6% | 24.7% |
| Forward P/E | 12.4x | 10.7x | 11.1x | 11.9x | 11.4x |
| Total Debt | $12.40B | $4.88B | $18.48B | $11.00B | $13.66B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $11.24B | $10.91B | $1.78B | $1.29B | $20.78B |
CFG vs RF vs HBAN vs KEY 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% |
| Regions Financial C… (RF) | 100 | 247.2 | +147.2% |
| Huntington Bancshar… (HBAN) | 100 | 182.1 | +82.1% |
| KeyCorp (KEY) | 100 | 183.0 | +83.0% |
| M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) | 100 | 201.6 | +101.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CFG vs RF vs HBAN vs KEY vs MTB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CFG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 257.8% 10Y total return vs RF's 283.3%
- +73.3% vs HBAN's +12.4%
RF is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Dividend streak 13 yrs, beta 1.10, yield 3.7%
- PEG 0.62 vs MTB's 9.05
- Beta 1.10, yield 3.7%, current ratio 0.30x
- Lower P/E (10.7x vs 11.9x), PEG 0.62 vs 3.26
Among these 5 stocks, HBAN doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
KEY is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 23.6%, EPS growth 5.8%
- 23.6% NII/revenue growth vs CFG's 1.3%
MTB carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for sleep-well-at-night and bank quality.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.93, Low D/E 47.1%, current ratio 0.22x
- NIM 3.3% vs KEY's 2.5%
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs RF's 0.5% (lower = leaner)
- Beta 0.93 vs CFG's 1.33, lower leverage
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 23.6% NII/revenue growth vs CFG's 1.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.7x vs 11.9x), PEG 0.62 vs 3.26 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs RF's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.93 vs CFG's 1.33, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.7% yield, 13-year raise streak, vs HBAN's 3.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +73.3% vs HBAN's +12.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs RF's 0.5% |
CFG vs RF vs HBAN vs KEY vs MTB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CFG vs RF vs HBAN vs KEY vs MTB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
RF leads in 2 of 6 categories
CFG leads 1 • HBAN leads 0 • KEY leads 0 • MTB leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RF leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MTB and RF operate at a comparable scale, with $13.4B and $9.6B in trailing revenue. RF is the more profitable business, keeping 22.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CFG's 12.2%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $12.3B | $9.6B | $12.5B | $11.2B | $13.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2.6B | $2.8B | $3.1B | $2.3B | $4.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.7B | $2.2B | $2.2B | $1.8B | $2.8B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $2.7B | $2.1B | $2.3B | $1.4B | $4.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +57.6% | +74.6% | +61.7% | +62.3% | +64.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +15.3% | +28.5% | +21.5% | +20.6% | +24.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +12.2% | +22.4% | +17.7% | +16.3% | +19.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.2% | +22.7% | +18.2% | — | +25.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +38.2% | +3.6% | -11.8% | +2.5% | +19.9% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — RF and HBAN each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 11.6x trailing earnings, HBAN trades at a 45% valuation discount to CFG's 21.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), RF offers better value at 0.70x vs MTB's 11.53x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $27.7B | $24.3B | $25.6B | $23.9B | $32.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $28.9B | $18.2B | $42.3B | $33.6B | $25.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 21.19x | 12.21x | 11.65x | 14.26x | 14.55x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 12.39x | 10.70x | 11.10x | 11.94x | 11.43x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.70x | 0.77x | 3.90x | 11.53x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.10x | 6.50x | 15.75x | 14.48x | 6.71x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.24x | 2.53x | 2.05x | 2.14x | 2.44x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.20x | 1.29x | 1.00x | 1.17x | 1.23x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 14.74x | 11.13x | 11.25x | — | 9.65x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RF leads this category, winning 8 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
RF delivers a 11.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $11 in annual profit, vs $7 for CFG. RF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.26x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HBAN's 0.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), RF scores 9/9 vs MTB's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +6.6% | +11.3% | +10.0% | +9.0% | +9.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.8% | +1.4% | +1.0% | +1.0% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.8% | +8.5% | +5.1% | +5.4% | +6.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +4.4% | +9.6% | +4.5% | +7.0% | +8.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.51x | 0.26x | 0.76x | 0.54x | 0.47x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.2B | -$6.0B | $16.7B | $9.7B | -$7.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $11.2B | $10.9B | $1.8B | $1.3B | $20.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $12.4B | $4.9B | $18.5B | $11.0B | $13.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.55x | 1.32x | 0.62x | 0.61x | 0.98x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CFG leads this category, winning 5 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 $11,140 for KEY. Over the past 12 months, CFG leads with a +73.3% total return vs HBAN's +12.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CFG at 39.1% vs HBAN's 22.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +9.7% | +2.4% | -6.5% | +4.3% | +5.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +73.3% | +39.6% | +12.4% | +47.7% | +25.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +169.3% | +88.5% | +85.1% | +149.4% | +97.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +46.9% | +41.3% | +22.0% | +11.4% | +46.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +257.8% | +283.3% | +121.5% | +141.8% | +125.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +39.1% | +23.5% | +22.8% | +35.6% | +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 HBAN's 83.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.33x | 1.10x | 1.09x | 1.12x | 0.93x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $68.79 | $31.53 | $19.46 | $23.35 | $239.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $37.93 | $20.67 | $14.87 | $15.16 | $172.95 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.3% | +88.7% | +83.2% | +92.8% | +89.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 60.2 | 55.5 | 53.4 | 61.8 | 53.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 4.5M | 11.8M | 24.3M | 13.8M | 1.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — RF and HBAN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CFG as "Buy", RF as "Hold", HBAN as "Buy", KEY as "Buy", MTB as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 25.9% upside for HBAN (target: $20) vs 6.6% for KEY (target: $23). For income investors, HBAN offers the higher dividend yield at 3.73% vs MTB's 2.51%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $72.42 | $30.78 | $20.38 | $23.11 | $237.71 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 38 | 52 | 48 | 51 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.6% | +3.7% | +3.7% | — | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.70 | $1.04 | $0.60 | — | $5.35 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +4.9% | +4.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +2.3% |
RF leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). CFG leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
CFG vs RF vs HBAN vs KEY vs MTB: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CFG or RF or HBAN or KEY or MTB a better buy right now?
For growth investors, KeyCorp (KEY) is the stronger pick with 23.
6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 3% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG). Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) offers the better valuation at 11. 6x trailing P/E (11. 1x 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 RF or HBAN or KEY or MTB?
On trailing P/E, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) is the cheapest at 11.
6x versus Citizens Financial Group, Inc. at 21. 2x. On forward P/E, Regions Financial Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 7x — 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: Regions Financial Corporation wins at 0. 62x versus M&T Bank Corporation's 9. 05x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CFG or RF or HBAN or KEY or MTB?
Over the past 5 years, Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
(CFG) delivered a total return of +46. 9%, compared to +11. 4% for KeyCorp (KEY). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RF returned +283. 3% versus HBAN's +121. 5%. 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 RF or HBAN or KEY 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, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 26% versus 76% for Huntington Bancshares Incorporated — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CFG or RF or HBAN or KEY or MTB?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), KeyCorp (KEY) is pulling ahead at 23.
6% versus 1. 3% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: KeyCorp grew EPS 575. 0% 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 RF or HBAN or KEY or MTB?
Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the more profitable company, earning 22.
4% net margin versus 12. 2% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 22. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RF leads at 28. 5% versus 15. 3% for CFG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RF leads at 74. 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 CFG or RF or HBAN or KEY or MTB 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, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 62x versus M&T Bank Corporation's 9. 05x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) trades at 10. 7x forward P/E versus 12. 4x for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — 1. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for HBAN: 25. 9% to $20. 38.
08Which pays a better dividend — CFG or RF or HBAN or KEY or MTB?
In this comparison, HBAN (3.
7% yield), RF (3. 7% yield), CFG (2. 6% yield), MTB (2. 5% yield) pay a dividend. KEY does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is CFG or RF or HBAN or KEY 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%, KEY: +141. 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 RF and HBAN and KEY 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; RF is a mid-cap deep-value stock; HBAN is a mid-cap deep-value stock; KEY is a mid-cap high-growth stock; MTB is a mid-cap deep-value stock. CFG, RF, HBAN, MTB pay a dividend while KEY does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.