LKFN vs FULT

For growth investors, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the stronger pick with 5.

0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 9% for Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN). 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 Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN) a "Hold" — based on 10 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, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the cheapest at 10.

3x versus Lakeland Financial Corporation at 15. 6x. 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: Fulton Financial Corporation wins at 0. 76x versus Lakeland Financial Corporation's 3. 63x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) delivered a total return of +41.

4%, compared to +10. 5% for Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LKFN returned +142. 7% versus FULT's +106. 1%. 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), Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

79β versus Fulton Financial Corporation's 1. 13β — meaning FULT is approximately 43% more volatile than LKFN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 24% versus 37% for Fulton Financial Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is pulling ahead at 5.

0% versus -1. 9% for Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fulton Financial Corporation grew EPS 32. 5% year-over-year, compared to 10. 5% for Lakeland 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.

Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN) is the more profitable company, earning 24.

5% net margin versus 20. 7% for Fulton Financial Corporation — meaning it keeps 24. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LKFN leads at 29. 8% versus 25. 7% for FULT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FULT leads at 67. 4%, 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.

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, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 76x versus Lakeland Financial Corporation's 3. 63x. 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 14. 4x for Lakeland Financial Corporation — 3. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FULT: 11. 9% to $24. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) offers the highest yield at 3. 6%, versus 3. 2% for Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

79), 3. 2% yield, +142. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (LKFN: +142. 7%, FULT: +106. 1%), 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.

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.