CPF vs ICE

For growth investors, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is the stronger pick with 7. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 6. 4% for Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF). Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF) offers the better valuation at 12. 1x trailing P/E (10. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE) a "Buy" — based on 36 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.

On trailing P/E, Central Pacific Financial Corp.

(CPF) is the cheapest at 12. 1x versus Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. at 26. 6x. On forward P/E, Central Pacific Financial Corp. is actually cheaper at 10. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Central Pacific Financial Corp. wins at 0. 63x versus Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 's 2. 15x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) delivered a total return of +42. 4%, compared to +39. 2% for Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ICE returned +222. 9% versus CPF's +93. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 33β versus Central Pacific Financial Corp. 's 0. 80β — meaning CPF is approximately 145% more volatile than ICE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 70% for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is pulling ahead at 7. 5% versus 6. 4% for Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Central Pacific Financial Corp. grew EPS 45. 7% year-over-year, compared to 20. 7% for Intercontinental Exchange, 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.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is the more profitable company, earning 26. 1% net margin versus 21. 4% for Central Pacific Financial Corp. — meaning it keeps 26. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ICE leads at 38. 7% versus 27. 8% for CPF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CPF leads at 76. 1%, 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.

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, Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 63x versus Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 's 2. 15x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF) trades at 10. 7x forward P/E versus 19. 1x for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. — 8. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ICE: 27. 6% to $195. 71.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Central Pacific Financial Corp. (CPF) offers the highest yield at 3. 1%, versus 1. 3% for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 33), 1. 3% yield, +222. 9% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ICE: +222. 9%, CPF: +93. 0%), 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.

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: CPF is a small-cap deep-value stock; ICE is a mid-cap quality compounder 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.