Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $4.15B | $3.79B | $2.64B | $690M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.89B | $1.36B | $1.12B | $315M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $392M | $287M | $224M | $69M |
| Gross Margin | 67.4% | 74.7% | 71.0% | 69.6% |
| Operating Margin | 25.7% | 28.0% | 25.5% | 25.8% |
| Forward P/E | 10.7x | 11.8x | 11.5x | 9.4x |
| Total Debt | $1.30B | $303M | $1.12B | $117M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $271M | $1.33B | $668M | $52M |
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fulton Financial Co… (FULT) | 100 | 192.5 | +92.5% |
| WSFS Financial Corp… (WSFS) | 100 | 259.7 | +159.7% |
| Trustmark Corporati… (TRMK) | 100 | 188.1 | +88.1% |
| Independent Bank Co… (IBCP) | 100 | 242.5 | +142.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FULT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 5.0%, EPS growth 32.5%
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs WSFS's 0.5% (lower = leaner)
- 3.6% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs IBCP's 3.1%
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs WSFS's 0.5%
WSFS is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.67 vs IBCP's 1.79
- +36.7% vs IBCP's +11.2%
TRMK is the clearest fit if your priority is bank quality.
- NIM 3.4% vs FULT's 3.2%
- 34.8% NII/revenue growth vs WSFS's -3.1%
IBCP is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 0.83, yield 3.1%
- 181.9% 10Y total return vs WSFS's 129.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.83, Low D/E 23.2%, current ratio 370.62x
- Beta 0.83, yield 3.1%, current ratio 370.62x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 34.8% NII/revenue growth vs WSFS's -3.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.4x vs 11.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs WSFS's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.83 vs FULT's 1.13, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs IBCP's 3.1% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +36.7% vs IBCP's +11.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs WSFS's 0.5% |
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
WSFS leads in 2 of 6 categories
IBCP leads 1 • FULT leads 0 • TRMK leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — WSFS and IBCP each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FULT is the larger business by revenue, generating $1.9B annually — 6.0x IBCP's $315M. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 21.7% (IBCP) to 20.0% (TRMK).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.9B | $1.4B | $1.1B | $315M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $529M | $408M | $323M | $89M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $392M | $287M | $224M | $69M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $267M | $214M | $230M | $70M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +67.4% | +74.7% | +71.0% | +69.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +25.7% | +28.0% | +25.5% | +25.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +20.7% | +21.1% | +20.0% | +21.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.0% | +15.7% | +20.7% | +22.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +47.2% | +22.9% | +5.4% | +2.3% |
Valuation Metrics
IBCP leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.3x trailing earnings, IBCP trades at a 27% valuation discount to WSFS's 14.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FULT offers better value at 0.74x vs IBCP's 1.95x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $4.2B | $3.8B | $2.6B | $690M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $5.2B | $2.8B | $3.1B | $755M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 10.38x | 14.12x | 12.10x | 10.25x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 10.67x | 11.76x | 11.46x | 9.44x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.74x | 0.81x | 1.50x | 1.95x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.78x | 6.78x | 9.47x | 9.28x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.20x | 2.79x | 2.35x | 2.19x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.13x | 1.44x | 1.28x | 1.39x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 14.61x | 17.74x | 11.36x | 9.83x |
Profitability & Efficiency
WSFS 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 $11 for WSFS. WSFS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.11x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TRMK's 0.53x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IBCP scores 8/9 vs WSFS's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.6% | +10.6% | +10.8% | +14.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.2% | +1.4% | +1.2% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.5% | +9.5% | +7.1% | +10.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.5% | +10.3% | +3.2% | +2.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.37x | 0.11x | 0.53x | 0.23x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.0B | -$1.0B | $448M | $65M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $271M | $1.3B | $668M | $52M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.3B | $303M | $1.1B | $117M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.84x | 1.30x | 0.75x | 0.91x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WSFS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IBCP five years ago would be worth $16,340 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $14,462 for FULT. Over the past 12 months, WSFS leads with a +36.7% total return vs IBCP's +11.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WSFS at 31.5% vs TRMK's 28.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +11.8% | +30.8% | +15.1% | +5.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +29.1% | +36.7% | +31.7% | +11.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +126.2% | +127.3% | +110.9% | +123.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +44.6% | +45.2% | +48.4% | +63.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +107.4% | +129.8% | +127.7% | +181.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +31.3% | +31.5% | +28.2% | +30.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — WSFS and IBCP each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
IBCP is the less volatile stock with a 0.83 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FULT's 1.13 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WSFS currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs IBCP's 89.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.13x | 0.89x | 0.94x | 0.83x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $22.99 | $73.06 | $45.99 | $37.39 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $16.60 | $49.92 | $33.39 | $29.63 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.9% | +98.3% | +97.3% | +89.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.1 | 60.4 | 51.8 | 43.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.0M | 386K | 396K | 177K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FULT and IBCP each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FULT as "Hold", WSFS as "Hold", TRMK as "Hold", IBCP as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 13.4% upside for IBCP (target: $38) vs 1.7% for TRMK (target: $46). For income investors, FULT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.57% vs WSFS's 0.95%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $24.00 | $74.67 | $45.50 | $38.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 20 | 13 | 9 | 7 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.6% | +1.0% | +2.2% | +3.1% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.77 | $0.68 | $0.97 | $1.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.6% | +7.7% | +3.0% | +1.8% |
WSFS leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). IBCP leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FULT or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Trustmark Corporation (TRMK) is the stronger pick with 34.
8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 1% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS). Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) offers the better valuation at 10. 3x trailing P/E (9. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) a "Hold" — based on 20 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 — FULT or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
On trailing P/E, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the cheapest at 10.
3x versus WSFS Financial Corporation at 14. 1x. On forward P/E, Independent Bank Corporation is actually cheaper at 9. 4x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: WSFS Financial Corporation wins at 0. 67x versus Independent Bank Corporation's 1. 79x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FULT or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
Over the past 5 years, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) delivered a total return of +63.
4%, compared to +44. 6% for Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IBCP returned +181. 9% versus FULT's +107. 4%. 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 — FULT or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
83β versus Fulton Financial Corporation's 1. 13β — meaning FULT is approximately 37% more volatile than IBCP relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 53% for Trustmark Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FULT or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Trustmark Corporation (TRMK) is pulling ahead at 34.
8% versus -3. 1% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fulton Financial Corporation grew EPS 32. 5% year-over-year, compared to 1. 9% for Trustmark 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 — FULT or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the more profitable company, earning 21.
7% net margin versus 20. 0% for Trustmark Corporation — meaning it keeps 21. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WSFS leads at 28. 0% versus 25. 5% for TRMK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WSFS leads at 74. 7%, 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 FULT or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP 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, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 67x versus Independent Bank Corporation's 1. 79x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) trades at 9. 4x forward P/E versus 11. 8x for WSFS Financial Corporation — 2. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IBCP: 13. 4% to $38. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — FULT or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) offers the highest yield at 3. 6%, versus 1. 0% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS).
09Is FULT or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
83), 3. 1% yield, +181. 9% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (IBCP: +181. 9%, FULT: +107. 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.
10What are the main differences between FULT and WSFS and TRMK and IBCP?
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: FULT is a small-cap deep-value stock; WSFS is a small-cap deep-value stock; TRMK is a small-cap high-growth stock; IBCP 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.