EFSC vs CVBF

For growth investors, Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) is the stronger pick with 12.

0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 3% for CVB Financial Corp. (CVBF). Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) offers the better valuation at 11. 2x trailing P/E (10. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) a "Buy" — based on 9 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, Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) is the cheapest at 11.

2x versus CVB Financial Corp. at 13. 6x. On forward P/E, Enterprise Financial Services 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: Enterprise Financial Services Corp wins at 0. 77x versus CVB Financial Corp. 's 4. 51x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) delivered a total return of +27.

3%, compared to +11. 9% for CVB Financial Corp. (CVBF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: EFSC returned +153. 0% versus CVBF's +67. 4%. 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), Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

90β versus CVB Financial Corp. 's 0. 94β — meaning CVBF is approximately 4% more volatile than EFSC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 25% versus 43% for CVB Financial Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) is pulling ahead at 12.

0% versus -2. 3% for CVB Financial Corp. (CVBF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Enterprise Financial Services Corp grew EPS 9. 9% year-over-year, compared to 5. 6% for CVB Financial Corp.. 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.

CVB Financial Corp.

(CVBF) is the more profitable company, earning 32. 5% net margin versus 22. 1% for Enterprise Financial Services Corp — meaning it keeps 32. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CVBF leads at 43. 8% versus 31. 1% for EFSC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CVBF leads at 79. 9%, 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, Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 77x versus CVB Financial Corp. 's 4. 51x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) trades at 10. 7x forward P/E versus 14. 3x for CVB Financial Corp. — 3. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CVBF: 20. 0% to $24. 75.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

CVB Financial Corp. (CVBF) offers the highest yield at 4. 0%, versus 2. 0% for Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

90), 2. 0% yield, +153. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (EFSC: +153. 0%, CVBF: +67. 4%), 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.

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.