Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
COFS vs MBWM vs IBCP vs CZWI vs BWFG
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
COFS vs MBWM vs IBCP vs CZWI vs BWFG — 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 | $471M | $900M | $711M | $206M | $417M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $193M | $372M | $315M | $90M | $208M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $28M | $89M | $69M | $14M | $35M |
| Gross Margin | 58.2% | 64.0% | 69.6% | 54.7% | 51.6% |
| Operating Margin | 17.7% | 27.5% | 25.8% | 7.0% | 23.3% |
| Forward P/E | 8.7x | 9.6x | 9.7x | 11.8x | 9.7x |
| Total Debt | $316M | $826M | $117M | $52M | $180M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $88M | $473M | $52M | $119M | $225M |
COFS vs MBWM vs IBCP vs CZWI vs BWFG — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| ChoiceOne Financial… (COFS) | 100 | 107.2 | +7.2% |
| Mercantile Bank Cor… (MBWM) | 100 | 227.2 | +127.2% |
| Independent Bank Co… (IBCP) | 100 | 249.8 | +149.8% |
| Citizens Community … (CZWI) | 100 | 291.2 | +191.2% |
| Bankwell Financial … (BWFG) | 100 | 357.7 | +257.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: COFS vs MBWM vs IBCP vs CZWI vs BWFG
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
COFS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth and value.
- 38.7% NII/revenue growth vs CZWI's -9.4%
- Lower P/E (8.7x vs 11.8x)
- 3.8% yield, 5-year raise streak, vs IBCP's 3.0%
MBWM is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 178.6% 10Y total return vs IBCP's 188.6%
IBCP is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and bank quality.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 0.81, yield 3.0%
- NIM 3.3% vs CZWI's 2.9%
CZWI ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.45, Low D/E 27.6%, current ratio 3015.31x
- Beta 0.45, yield 1.7%, current ratio 3015.31x
- Beta 0.45 vs COFS's 0.94, lower leverage
BWFG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Rev growth 6.1%, EPS growth 261.8%
- PEG 0.23 vs CZWI's 2.32
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CZWI's 0.5% (lower = leaner)
- +54.2% vs IBCP's +11.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 38.7% NII/revenue growth vs CZWI's -9.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.7x vs 11.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CZWI's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.45 vs COFS's 0.94, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.8% yield, 5-year raise streak, vs IBCP's 3.0% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +54.2% vs IBCP's +11.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CZWI's 0.5% |
COFS vs MBWM vs IBCP vs CZWI vs BWFG — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
COFS vs MBWM vs IBCP vs CZWI vs BWFG — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BWFG leads in 1 of 6 categories
IBCP leads 1 • CZWI leads 1 • COFS leads 0 • MBWM leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — MBWM and IBCP each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MBWM is the larger business by revenue, generating $372M annually — 4.1x CZWI's $90M. MBWM is the more profitable business, keeping 23.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to COFS's 14.6%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $193M | $372M | $315M | $90M | $208M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $49M | $107M | $89M | $9M | $53M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $28M | $89M | $69M | $14M | $35M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $12M | $11M | $70M | $11M | -$5M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +58.2% | +64.0% | +69.6% | +54.7% | +51.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +17.7% | +27.5% | +25.8% | +7.0% | +23.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +14.6% | +23.9% | +21.7% | +16.0% | +16.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +12.4% | +3.0% | +22.2% | +11.5% | +12.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.5% | +14.8% | +2.3% | +63.0% | +2.1% |
Valuation Metrics
BWFG leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.5x trailing earnings, MBWM trades at a 39% valuation discount to COFS's 15.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), BWFG offers better value at 0.28x vs CZWI's 2.89x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $471M | $900M | $711M | $206M | $417M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $699M | $1.3B | $775M | $139M | $372M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 15.66x | 9.54x | 10.56x | 14.66x | 11.77x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 8.73x | 9.56x | 9.72x | 11.76x | 9.67x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.63x | 2.01x | 2.89x | 0.28x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 20.44x | 11.76x | 9.54x | 15.63x | 7.08x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.44x | 2.42x | 2.25x | 2.29x | 2.01x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.95x | 1.17x | 1.43x | 1.11x | 1.36x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 19.71x | 80.31x | 10.13x | 19.85x | 15.98x |
Profitability & Efficiency
IBCP leads this category, winning 5 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 $6 for COFS. IBCP carries lower financial leverage with a 0.23x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MBWM's 1.14x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IBCP scores 8/9 vs MBWM's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +6.4% | +13.5% | +14.2% | +7.8% | +12.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.7% | +1.4% | +1.3% | +0.8% | +1.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +4.1% | +5.5% | +10.2% | +2.0% | +8.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +1.5% | +8.0% | +2.6% | +0.6% | +4.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.68x | 1.14x | 0.23x | 0.28x | 0.60x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $228M | $353M | $65M | -$67M | -$45M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $88M | $473M | $52M | $119M | $225M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $316M | $826M | $117M | $52M | $180M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.52x | 0.79x | 0.91x | 0.16x | 0.49x |
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 $19,563 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $14,442 for COFS. Over the past 12 months, BWFG leads with a +54.2% total return vs IBCP's +11.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CZWI at 38.4% vs COFS's 17.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +9.7% | +10.3% | +9.0% | +24.0% | +17.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +12.1% | +22.2% | +11.7% | +46.0% | +54.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +61.2% | +127.7% | +134.2% | +165.0% | +146.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +44.4% | +81.5% | +68.5% | +73.0% | +95.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +101.9% | +178.6% | +188.6% | +161.7% | +177.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +17.2% | +31.6% | +32.8% | +38.4% | +35.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CZWI and BWFG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CZWI is the less volatile stock with a 0.45 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than COFS's 0.94 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. BWFG currently trades 97.2% from its 52-week high vs COFS's 88.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.94x | 0.86x | 0.81x | 0.45x | 0.82x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $35.40 | $55.77 | $37.39 | $22.62 | $53.86 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $26.10 | $42.17 | $29.63 | $12.83 | $33.26 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +88.9% | +93.4% | +92.3% | +94.6% | +97.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 63.7 | 52.0 | 52.0 | 64.4 | 54.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 75K | 111K | 176K | 40K | 40K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — COFS and IBCP each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: COFS as "Buy", MBWM as "Buy", IBCP as "Hold", CZWI as "Buy", BWFG as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 10.1% upside for IBCP (target: $38) vs 8.0% for COFS (target: $34). For income investors, COFS offers the higher dividend yield at 3.85% vs BWFG's 1.53%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $34.00 | $57.00 | $38.00 | — | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 3 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 3 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.8% | +2.8% | +3.0% | +1.7% | +1.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 5 | 6 | 11 | 7 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.21 | $1.47 | $1.03 | $0.37 | $0.80 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.6% | 0.0% | +1.7% | +3.0% | +0.3% |
BWFG leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). IBCP leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
COFS vs MBWM vs IBCP vs CZWI vs BWFG: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is COFS or MBWM or IBCP or CZWI or BWFG a better buy right now?
For growth investors, ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc.
(COFS) is the stronger pick with 38. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 4% for Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. (CZWI). Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) offers the better valuation at 9. 5x trailing P/E (9. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc. (COFS) 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 — COFS or MBWM or IBCP or CZWI or BWFG?
On trailing P/E, Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) is the cheapest at 9.
5x versus ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc. at 15. 7x. On forward P/E, ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc. is actually cheaper at 8. 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: Bankwell Financial Group, Inc. wins at 0. 23x versus Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. 's 2. 32x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — COFS or MBWM or IBCP or CZWI or BWFG?
Over the past 5 years, Bankwell Financial Group, Inc.
(BWFG) delivered a total return of +95. 6%, compared to +44. 4% for ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc. (COFS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IBCP returned +188. 6% versus COFS's +101. 9%. 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 — COFS or MBWM or IBCP or CZWI or BWFG?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc.
(CZWI) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 45β versus ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc. 's 0. 94β — meaning COFS is approximately 107% more volatile than CZWI relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 23% versus 114% for Mercantile Bank Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — COFS or MBWM or IBCP or CZWI or BWFG?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc.
(COFS) is pulling ahead at 38. 7% 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 -38. 2% for ChoiceOne Financial 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 — COFS or MBWM or IBCP or CZWI or BWFG?
Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) is the more profitable company, earning 23.
9% net margin versus 14. 6% for ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc. — meaning it keeps 23. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MBWM leads at 27. 5% versus 7. 0% for CZWI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IBCP leads at 69. 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 COFS or MBWM or IBCP or CZWI or BWFG 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. 23x versus Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. 's 2. 32x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc. (COFS) trades at 8. 7x forward P/E versus 11. 8x for Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. — 3. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IBCP: 10. 1% to $38. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — COFS or MBWM or IBCP or CZWI or BWFG?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc. (COFS) offers the highest yield at 3. 8%, versus 1. 5% for Bankwell Financial Group, Inc. (BWFG).
09Is COFS or MBWM or IBCP or CZWI or BWFG 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. 45), 1. 7% yield, +161. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CZWI: +161. 7%, COFS: +101. 9%), 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 COFS and MBWM and IBCP and CZWI and BWFG?
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: COFS is a small-cap high-growth stock; MBWM is a small-cap deep-value stock; IBCP is a small-cap deep-value stock; CZWI is a small-cap deep-value stock; BWFG 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.