Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
HWC vs UBSI vs WSFS vs FULT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
HWC vs UBSI vs WSFS vs FULT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $5.61B | $6.06B | $3.78B | $4.14B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.02B | $1.82B | $1.36B | $1.89B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $486M | $465M | $287M | $392M |
| Gross Margin | 73.1% | 65.4% | 74.7% | 67.4% |
| Operating Margin | 31.0% | 32.4% | 28.0% | 25.7% |
| Forward P/E | 10.8x | 12.0x | 11.7x | 10.6x |
| Total Debt | $1.34B | $921M | $303M | $1.30B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $563M | $2.54B | $1.33B | $271M |
HWC vs UBSI vs WSFS vs FULT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hancock Whitney Cor… (HWC) | 100 | 318.0 | +218.0% |
| United Bankshares, … (UBSI) | 100 | 149.3 | +49.3% |
| WSFS Financial Corp… (WSFS) | 100 | 259.1 | +159.1% |
| Fulton Financial Co… (FULT) | 100 | 191.8 | +91.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HWC vs UBSI vs WSFS vs FULT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
HWC is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 225.9% 10Y total return vs WSFS's 128.5%
UBSI carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 5 yrs, beta 0.93, yield 3.4%
- Rev growth 12.3%, EPS growth 18.9%
- Beta 0.93, yield 3.4%, current ratio 28.21x
- 12.3% NII/revenue growth vs WSFS's -3.1%
WSFS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.87, Low D/E 11.1%, current ratio 0.08x
- PEG 0.67 vs UBSI's 1.88
- NIM 3.4% vs HWC's 2.8%
- Lower P/E (11.7x vs 12.0x), PEG 0.67 vs 1.88
FULT is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.
- 3.6% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs UBSI's 3.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 12.3% NII/revenue growth vs WSFS's -3.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.7x vs 12.0x), PEG 0.67 vs 1.88 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs WSFS's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.87 vs HWC's 1.13, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs UBSI's 3.4% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +34.6% vs UBSI's +25.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs WSFS's 0.5% |
HWC vs UBSI vs WSFS vs FULT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
HWC vs UBSI vs WSFS vs FULT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
WSFS leads in 3 of 6 categories
UBSI leads 1 • FULT leads 1 • HWC leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
UBSI leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HWC and WSFS operate at a comparable scale, with $2.0B and $1.4B in trailing revenue. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 25.5% (UBSI) to 20.7% (FULT).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.0B | $1.8B | $1.4B | $1.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $656M | $590M | $408M | $529M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $486M | $465M | $287M | $392M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $523M | $487M | $214M | $267M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +73.1% | +65.4% | +74.7% | +67.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +31.0% | +32.4% | +28.0% | +25.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +24.1% | +25.5% | +21.1% | +20.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +25.9% | +26.4% | +15.7% | +15.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.4% | +30.0% | +22.9% | +47.2% |
Valuation Metrics
FULT leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.3x trailing earnings, FULT 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 UBSI's 2.08x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $5.6B | $6.1B | $3.8B | $4.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $6.4B | $4.4B | $2.8B | $5.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 12.11x | 13.28x | 14.09x | 10.34x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 10.78x | 11.99x | 11.73x | 10.57x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 2.08x | 0.80x | 0.74x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.73x | 7.53x | 6.76x | 9.76x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.78x | 3.33x | 2.78x | 2.19x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.30x | 1.11x | 1.43x | 1.13x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 10.72x | 12.60x | 17.70x | 14.55x |
Profitability & Efficiency
WSFS leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FULT delivers a 11.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $12 in annual profit, vs $9 for UBSI. WSFS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.11x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FULT's 0.37x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), UBSI scores 7/9 vs FULT's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.1% | +8.6% | +10.6% | +11.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.4% | +1.4% | +1.4% | +1.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.6% | +7.2% | +9.5% | +7.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.2% | +3.0% | +10.3% | +9.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.30x | 0.17x | 0.11x | 0.37x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $775M | -$1.6B | -$1.0B | $1.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $563M | $2.5B | $1.3B | $271M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.3B | $921M | $303M | $1.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.23x | 1.01x | 1.30x | 0.84x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WSFS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in HWC five years ago would be worth $15,525 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $12,490 for UBSI. Over the past 12 months, WSFS leads with a +34.6% total return vs UBSI's +25.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WSFS at 32.9% vs UBSI's 17.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +8.2% | +14.1% | +30.9% | +11.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +29.2% | +25.4% | +34.6% | +27.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +119.6% | +61.7% | +134.8% | +130.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +55.3% | +24.9% | +45.5% | +42.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +225.9% | +52.4% | +128.5% | +106.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +30.0% | +17.4% | +32.9% | +32.2% |
Risk & Volatility
WSFS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
WSFS is the less volatile stock with a 0.87 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than HWC's 1.13 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WSFS currently trades 97.9% from its 52-week high vs HWC's 91.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.13x | 0.93x | 0.87x | 1.12x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $75.43 | $45.93 | $73.22 | $22.99 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $52.89 | $34.10 | $49.92 | $16.60 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.2% | +94.5% | +97.9% | +93.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.5 | 52.1 | 63.6 | 50.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 788K | 916K | 388K | 2.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — UBSI and FULT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: HWC as "Buy", UBSI as "Hold", WSFS as "Hold", FULT as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 13.1% upside for HWC (target: $78) vs 7.5% for UBSI (target: $47). For income investors, FULT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.58% vs WSFS's 0.95%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $77.75 | $46.67 | $79.00 | $24.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 23 | 11 | 13 | 20 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.7% | +3.4% | +1.0% | +3.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.82 | $1.48 | $0.68 | $0.77 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +4.4% | +2.1% | +7.7% | +1.6% |
WSFS leads in 3 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). UBSI leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 1 tied.
HWC vs UBSI vs WSFS vs FULT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HWC or UBSI or WSFS or FULT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, United Bankshares, Inc.
(UBSI) is the stronger pick with 12. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 1% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS). Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) offers the better valuation at 10. 3x trailing P/E (10. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Hancock Whitney Corporation (HWC) a "Buy" — based on 23 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 — HWC or UBSI or WSFS or FULT?
On trailing P/E, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the cheapest at 10.
3x versus WSFS Financial Corporation at 14. 1x. On forward P/E, Fulton Financial Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 6x. 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 United Bankshares, Inc. 's 1. 88x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — HWC or UBSI or WSFS or FULT?
Over the past 5 years, Hancock Whitney Corporation (HWC) delivered a total return of +55.
3%, compared to +24. 9% for United Bankshares, Inc. (UBSI). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: HWC returned +225. 9% versus UBSI's +52. 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 — HWC or UBSI or WSFS or FULT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
87β versus Hancock Whitney Corporation's 1. 13β — meaning HWC is approximately 31% more volatile than WSFS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 37% for Fulton Financial Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HWC or UBSI or WSFS or FULT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), United Bankshares, Inc.
(UBSI) is pulling ahead at 12. 3% 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 7. 6% for Hancock Whitney 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 — HWC or UBSI or WSFS or FULT?
United Bankshares, Inc.
(UBSI) is the more profitable company, earning 25. 5% net margin versus 20. 7% for Fulton Financial Corporation — meaning it keeps 25. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: UBSI leads at 32. 4% versus 25. 7% for FULT. 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 HWC or UBSI or WSFS or FULT 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 United Bankshares, Inc. 's 1. 88x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) trades at 10. 6x forward P/E versus 12. 0x for United Bankshares, Inc. — 1. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for HWC: 13. 1% to $77. 75.
08Which pays a better dividend — HWC or UBSI or WSFS or FULT?
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 HWC or UBSI or WSFS or FULT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
87), 1. 0% yield, +128. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WSFS: +128. 5%, FULT: +106. 5%), 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 HWC and UBSI and WSFS and FULT?
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.
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.