FHN vs ICE

For growth investors, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is the stronger pick with 7. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 0% for First Horizon Corporation (FHN). First Horizon Corporation (FHN) offers the better valuation at 13. 0x trailing P/E (11. 4x 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, First Horizon Corporation (FHN) is the cheapest at 13.

0x versus Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. at 27. 1x. On forward P/E, First Horizon Corporation is actually cheaper at 11. 4x.

Over the past 5 years, First Horizon Corporation (FHN) delivered a total return of +43.

6%, compared to +43. 4% for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ICE returned +225. 3% versus FHN's +119. 6%. 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 First Horizon Corporation's 1. 10β — meaning FHN is approximately 235% more volatile than ICE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, First Horizon Corporation (FHN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 50% 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 1. 0% for First Horizon Corporation (FHN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: First Horizon Corporation grew EPS 38. 2% 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 19. 7% for First Horizon Corporation — 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 25. 7% for FHN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FHN leads at 67. 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.

On forward earnings alone, First Horizon Corporation (FHN) trades at 11.

4x forward P/E versus 19. 5x for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. — 8. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ICE: 25. 3% to $195. 71.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

First Horizon Corporation (FHN) offers the highest yield at 2. 6%, versus 1. 2% 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. 2% yield, +225. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ICE: +225. 3%, FHN: +119. 6%), 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: FHN is a mid-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.