Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
HBT vs MBWM vs CZWI vs MOFG vs BFST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
HBT vs MBWM vs CZWI vs MOFG vs BFST — 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 | $885M | $898M | $198M | $1.02B | $911M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $293M | $372M | $90M | $206M | $512M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $77M | $89M | $14M | $58M | $88M |
| Gross Margin | 80.0% | 64.0% | 54.7% | 29.4% | 60.9% |
| Operating Margin | 35.6% | 27.5% | 7.0% | -40.8% | 22.2% |
| Forward P/E | 9.6x | 9.5x | 11.3x | 13.8x | 9.3x |
| Total Debt | $65M | $826M | $52M | $117M | $551M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $24M | $473M | $119M | $205M | $411M |
HBT vs MBWM vs CZWI vs MOFG vs BFST — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| HBT Financial, Inc. (HBT) | 100 | 221.5 | +121.5% |
| Mercantile Bank Cor… (MBWM) | 100 | 226.7 | +126.7% |
| Citizens Community … (CZWI) | 100 | 279.5 | +179.5% |
| MidWestOne Financia… (MOFG) | 100 | 241.4 | +141.4% |
| Business First Banc… (BFST) | 100 | 192.4 | +92.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HBT vs MBWM vs CZWI vs MOFG vs BFST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
HBT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and bank quality.
- Dividend streak 5 yrs, beta 0.77, yield 3.0%
- NIM 3.9% vs MOFG's 2.5%
- 3.0% yield, 5-year raise streak, vs BFST's 2.0%
MBWM has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 172.1% 10Y total return vs HBT's 110.7%
- PEG 0.63 vs CZWI's 2.22
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs MOFG's 0.7% (lower = leaner)
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs MOFG's 0.7%
CZWI is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.50, Low D/E 27.6%, current ratio 3015.31x
- Beta 0.50, yield 1.8%, current ratio 3015.31x
- Beta 0.50 vs MOFG's 1.37
MOFG is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +68.5% vs MBWM's +16.4%
BFST is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 11.8%, EPS growth 23.0%
- 11.8% NII/revenue growth vs MOFG's -23.1%
- Lower P/E (9.3x vs 13.8x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 11.8% NII/revenue growth vs MOFG's -23.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.3x vs 13.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs MOFG's 0.7% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.50 vs MOFG's 1.37 | |
| Dividends | 3.0% yield, 5-year raise streak, vs BFST's 2.0% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +68.5% vs MBWM's +16.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs MOFG's 0.7% |
HBT vs MBWM vs CZWI vs MOFG vs BFST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
HBT vs MBWM vs CZWI vs MOFG vs BFST — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
HBT leads in 2 of 6 categories
BFST leads 1 • MOFG leads 1 • MBWM leads 0 • CZWI leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HBT leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BFST is the larger business by revenue, generating $512M annually — 5.7x CZWI's $90M. HBT is the more profitable business, keeping 26.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MOFG's -29.3%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $293M | $372M | $90M | $206M | $512M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $110M | $107M | $9M | $74M | $119M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $77M | $89M | $14M | $58M | $88M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $193M | $11M | $11M | $79M | $88M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +80.0% | +64.0% | +54.7% | +29.4% | +60.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +35.6% | +27.5% | +7.0% | -40.8% | +22.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +26.3% | +23.9% | +16.0% | -29.3% | +17.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +24.9% | +3.0% | +11.5% | +29.5% | +18.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -6.3% | +14.8% | +63.0% | +113.6% | +39.2% |
Valuation Metrics
BFST leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.5x trailing earnings, MBWM trades at a 32% valuation discount to CZWI's 14.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MBWM offers better value at 0.63x vs CZWI's 2.77x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $885M | $898M | $198M | $1.0B | $911M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $926M | $1.3B | $131M | $929M | $1.1B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 11.55x | 9.53x | 14.07x | -13.93x | 10.03x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 9.59x | 9.54x | 11.29x | 13.77x | 9.32x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.91x | 0.63x | 2.77x | — | 0.90x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.45x | 11.75x | 14.69x | — | 8.83x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.02x | 2.42x | 2.20x | 4.94x | 1.78x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.44x | 1.17x | 1.06x | 1.50x | 0.92x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 12.13x | 80.15x | 19.05x | 16.74x | 9.90x |
Profitability & Efficiency
HBT leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MBWM delivers a 13.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $14 in annual profit, vs $8 for CZWI. HBT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.11x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MBWM's 1.14x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), HBT scores 9/9 vs MOFG's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.0% | +13.5% | +7.8% | +10.0% | +10.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.5% | +1.4% | +0.8% | +0.9% | +1.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +11.5% | +5.5% | +2.0% | -9.4% | +6.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +7.7% | +8.0% | +0.6% | -9.5% | +8.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 9 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.11x | 1.14x | 0.28x | 0.21x | 0.61x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $41M | $353M | -$67M | -$88M | $140M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $24M | $473M | $119M | $205M | $411M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $65M | $826M | $52M | $117M | $551M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.84x | 0.79x | 0.16x | 0.67x | 0.59x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MOFG leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MBWM five years ago would be worth $18,436 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $12,721 for BFST. Over the past 12 months, MOFG leads with a +68.5% total return vs MBWM's +16.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MOFG at 39.0% vs HBT's 19.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +11.4% | +10.1% | +19.0% | +30.2% | +8.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +18.1% | +16.4% | +36.5% | +68.5% | +16.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +69.2% | +109.6% | +162.9% | +168.5% | +95.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +73.9% | +84.4% | +63.4% | +70.9% | +27.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +110.7% | +172.1% | +152.2% | +103.6% | +25.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +19.2% | +28.0% | +38.0% | +39.0% | +25.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CZWI and MOFG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CZWI is the less volatile stock with a 0.50 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than MOFG's 1.37 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MOFG currently trades 99.2% from its 52-week high vs CZWI's 90.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.77x | 0.83x | 0.50x | 1.37x | 0.89x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $29.88 | $55.77 | $22.62 | $49.69 | $30.32 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $22.36 | $42.17 | $12.83 | $26.52 | $22.52 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +94.3% | +93.3% | +90.8% | +99.2% | +92.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.7 | 47.2 | 42.5 | 74.9 | 45.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 70K | 107K | 34K | 0 | 172K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — HBT and BFST each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: HBT as "Buy", MBWM as "Buy", CZWI as "Buy", MOFG as "Buy", BFST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 16.0% upside for BFST (target: $32) vs -36.6% for MOFG (target: $31). For income investors, HBT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.00% vs CZWI's 1.80%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $31.00 | $57.00 | — | $31.25 | $32.33 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 6 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.0% | +2.8% | +1.8% | +2.0% | +2.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 5 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 10 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.85 | $1.47 | $0.37 | $0.97 | $0.57 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.5% | 0.0% | +3.2% | +0.0% | +0.4% |
HBT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). BFST leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
HBT vs MBWM vs CZWI vs MOFG vs BFST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HBT or MBWM or CZWI or MOFG or BFST a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Business First Bancshares, Inc.
(BFST) is the stronger pick with 11. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -23. 1% for MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. (MOFG). Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) offers the better valuation at 9. 5x trailing P/E (9. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate HBT Financial, Inc. (HBT) a "Buy" — based on 6 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 — HBT or MBWM or CZWI or MOFG or BFST?
On trailing P/E, Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) is the cheapest at 9.
5x versus Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. at 14. 1x. On forward P/E, Business First Bancshares, Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Mercantile Bank Corporation wins at 0. 63x versus Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. 's 2. 22x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — HBT or MBWM or CZWI or MOFG or BFST?
Over the past 5 years, Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) delivered a total return of +84.
4%, compared to +27. 2% for Business First Bancshares, Inc. (BFST). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MBWM returned +172. 1% versus BFST's +25. 8%. 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 — HBT or MBWM or CZWI or MOFG or BFST?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc.
(CZWI) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 50β versus MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. 's 1. 37β — meaning MOFG is approximately 173% more volatile than CZWI relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, HBT Financial, Inc. (HBT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 114% for Mercantile Bank Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HBT or MBWM or CZWI or MOFG or BFST?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Business First Bancshares, Inc.
(BFST) is pulling ahead at 11. 8% versus -23. 1% for MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. (MOFG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Business First Bancshares, Inc. grew EPS 23. 0% year-over-year, compared to -366. 2% for MidWestOne Financial Group, 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.
06Which has better profit margins — HBT or MBWM or CZWI or MOFG or BFST?
HBT Financial, Inc.
(HBT) is the more profitable company, earning 26. 3% net margin versus -29. 3% for MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 26. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: HBT leads at 35. 6% versus -40. 8% for MOFG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HBT leads at 80. 0%, 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 HBT or MBWM or CZWI or MOFG or BFST 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, Mercantile Bank Corporation (MBWM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 63x versus Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. 's 2. 22x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Business First Bancshares, Inc. (BFST) trades at 9. 3x forward P/E versus 13. 8x for MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. — 4. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BFST: 16. 0% to $32. 33.
08Which pays a better dividend — HBT or MBWM or CZWI or MOFG or BFST?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
HBT Financial, Inc. (HBT) offers the highest yield at 3. 0%, versus 1. 8% for Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. (CZWI).
09Is HBT or MBWM or CZWI or MOFG or BFST better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc.
(CZWI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 50), 1. 8% yield, +152. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CZWI: +152. 2%, MOFG: +103. 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 HBT and MBWM and CZWI and MOFG and BFST?
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: HBT is a small-cap deep-value stock; MBWM is a small-cap deep-value stock; CZWI is a small-cap deep-value stock; MOFG is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BFST 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.