Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs UMBF vs IBCP
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs UMBF vs IBCP — 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 | $4.15B | $3.79B | $2.64B | $9.98B | $690M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.89B | $1.36B | $1.12B | $4.44B | $315M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $392M | $287M | $224M | $883M | $69M |
| Gross Margin | 67.4% | 74.7% | 71.0% | 54.4% | 69.6% |
| Operating Margin | 25.7% | 28.0% | 25.5% | 20.3% | 25.8% |
| Forward P/E | 10.7x | 11.8x | 11.5x | 10.3x | 9.4x |
| Total Debt | $1.30B | $303M | $1.12B | $3.80B | $117M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $271M | $1.33B | $668M | $953M | $52M |
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs UMBF 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% |
| UMB Financial Corpo… (UMBF) | 100 | 255.6 | +155.6% |
| 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 UMBF vs IBCP
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FULT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 5.0%, EPS growth 32.5%
- 3.6% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs UMBF's 1.4%
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%
Among these 5 stocks, TRMK doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
UMBF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for bank quality.
- NIM 3.5% vs FULT's 3.2%
- 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs WSFS's -3.1%
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs WSFS's 0.5% (lower = leaner)
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs WSFS's 0.5%
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 | 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs WSFS's -3.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.4x vs 10.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs WSFS's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.83 vs UMBF's 1.19, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs UMBF's 1.4% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +36.7% vs IBCP's +11.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs WSFS's 0.5% |
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs UMBF 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 UMBF vs IBCP — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
IBCP leads in 1 of 6 categories
FULT leads 0 • WSFS leads 0 • TRMK leads 0 • UMBF leads 0 • 5 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)
UMBF is the larger business by revenue, generating $4.4B annually — 14.1x IBCP's $315M. IBCP is the more profitable business, keeping 21.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to UMBF's 15.8%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.9B | $1.4B | $1.1B | $4.4B | $315M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $529M | $408M | $323M | $1.1B | $89M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $392M | $287M | $224M | $883M | $69M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $267M | $214M | $230M | $985M | $70M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +67.4% | +74.7% | +71.0% | +54.4% | +69.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +25.7% | +28.0% | +25.5% | +20.3% | +25.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +20.7% | +21.1% | +20.0% | +15.8% | +21.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.0% | +15.7% | +20.7% | +22.0% | +22.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +47.2% | +22.9% | +5.4% | +176.9% | +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 29% valuation discount to UMBF's 14.4x 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 | $10.0B | $690M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $5.2B | $2.8B | $3.1B | $12.8B | $755M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 10.38x | 14.12x | 12.10x | 14.35x | 10.25x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 10.67x | 11.76x | 11.46x | 10.30x | 9.44x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.74x | 0.81x | 1.50x | 1.59x | 1.95x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.78x | 6.78x | 9.47x | 12.10x | 9.28x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.20x | 2.79x | 2.35x | 2.25x | 2.19x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.13x | 1.44x | 1.28x | 1.30x | 1.39x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 14.61x | 17.74x | 11.36x | 10.20x | 9.83x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — WSFS and IBCP each lead in 4 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% | +11.7% | +14.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.2% | +1.4% | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.5% | +9.5% | +7.1% | +7.5% | +10.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.5% | +10.3% | +3.2% | +14.4% | +2.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.37x | 0.11x | 0.53x | 0.49x | 0.23x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.0B | -$1.0B | $448M | $2.8B | $65M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $271M | $1.3B | $668M | $953M | $52M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.3B | $303M | $1.1B | $3.8B | $117M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.84x | 1.30x | 0.75x | 0.63x | 0.91x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — WSFS and UMBF and IBCP each lead in 2 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 $14,264 for UMBF. 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 UMBF at 32.9% vs TRMK's 28.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +11.8% | +30.8% | +15.1% | +12.9% | +5.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +29.1% | +36.7% | +31.7% | +31.4% | +11.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +126.2% | +127.3% | +110.9% | +134.7% | +123.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +44.6% | +45.2% | +48.4% | +42.6% | +63.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +107.4% | +129.8% | +127.7% | +168.6% | +181.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +31.3% | +31.5% | +28.2% | +32.9% | +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 UMBF's 1.19 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 | 1.19x | 0.83x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $22.99 | $73.06 | $45.99 | $136.11 | $37.39 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $16.60 | $49.92 | $33.39 | $98.16 | $29.63 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.9% | +98.3% | +97.3% | +96.3% | +89.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.1 | 60.4 | 51.8 | 72.4 | 43.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.0M | 386K | 396K | 606K | 177K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FULT and UMBF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FULT as "Hold", WSFS as "Hold", TRMK as "Hold", UMBF as "Buy", IBCP as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 14.8% upside for UMBF (target: $150) 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 | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $24.00 | $74.67 | $45.50 | $150.40 | $38.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 20 | 13 | 9 | 18 | 7 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.6% | +1.0% | +2.2% | +1.4% | +3.1% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.77 | $0.68 | $0.97 | $1.77 | $1.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.6% | +7.7% | +3.0% | +1.3% | +1.8% |
IBCP leads in 1 of 6 categories — strongest in Valuation Metrics. 5 categories are tied.
FULT vs WSFS vs TRMK vs UMBF vs IBCP: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FULT or WSFS or TRMK or UMBF or IBCP a better buy right now?
For growth investors, UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) is the stronger pick with 68.
5% 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 UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) a "Buy" — based on 18 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 UMBF or IBCP?
On trailing P/E, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the cheapest at 10.
3x versus UMB Financial Corporation at 14. 4x. 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 UMBF or IBCP?
Over the past 5 years, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) delivered a total return of +63.
4%, compared to +42. 6% for UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF). 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 UMBF or IBCP?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
83β versus UMB Financial Corporation's 1. 19β — meaning UMBF is approximately 44% 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 UMBF or IBCP?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) is pulling ahead at 68.
5% 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. 6% for UMB Financial 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 UMBF or IBCP?
Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the more profitable company, earning 21.
7% net margin versus 15. 8% for UMB Financial 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 20. 3% for UMBF. 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 UMBF 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 UMBF: 14. 8% to $150. 40.
08Which pays a better dividend — FULT or WSFS or TRMK or UMBF 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 UMBF 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%, UMBF: +168. 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.
10What are the main differences between FULT and WSFS and TRMK and UMBF 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; UMBF 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.