Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
MTB vs CFG
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
MTB vs CFG — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $33.42B | $28.31B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $13.40B | $12.35B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $2.77B | $1.70B |
| Gross Margin | 64.3% | 57.6% |
| Operating Margin | 24.7% | 15.3% |
| Forward P/E | 11.7x | 12.7x |
| Total Debt | $13.66B | $12.40B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20.78B | $11.24B |
MTB vs CFG — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) | 100 | 205.8 | +105.8% |
| Citizens Financial … (CFG) | 100 | 272.3 | +172.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MTB vs CFG
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MTB carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 9 yrs, beta 0.93, yield 2.5%
- Rev growth 7.2%, EPS growth -7.3%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.93, Low D/E 47.1%, current ratio 0.22x
CFG is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and defensive.
- 260.3% 10Y total return vs MTB's 128.1%
- Beta 1.33, yield 2.6%, current ratio 0.25x
- +76.5% vs MTB's +29.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 7.2% NII/revenue growth vs CFG's 1.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.7x vs 12.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs CFG's 0.4% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.93 vs CFG's 1.33, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield, 9-year raise streak, vs CFG's 2.6% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +76.5% vs MTB's +29.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs CFG's 0.4% |
MTB vs CFG — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
MTB vs CFG — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MTB leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MTB and CFG operate at a comparable scale, with $13.4B and $12.3B in trailing revenue. MTB is the more profitable business, keeping 19.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CFG's 12.2%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $13.4B | $12.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $4.0B | $2.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $2.8B | $1.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4.1B | $2.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +64.3% | +57.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +24.7% | +15.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +19.3% | +12.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +25.3% | +15.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +19.9% | +38.2% |
Valuation Metrics
MTB leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.9x trailing earnings, MTB trades at a 31% valuation discount to CFG's 21.7x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, MTB's 6.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than CFG's 12.4x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $33.4B | $28.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $26.3B | $29.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 14.85x | 21.66x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.66x | 12.66x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 11.77x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.89x | 12.35x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.49x | 2.29x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.25x | 1.23x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9.85x | 15.07x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MTB leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MTB delivers a 9.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $10 in annual profit, vs $7 for CFG. MTB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.47x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CFG's 0.51x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CFG scores 7/9 vs MTB's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.7% | +6.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.3% | +0.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.0% | +3.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.2% | +4.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.47x | 0.51x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$7.1B | $1.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20.8B | $11.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $13.7B | $12.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.98x | 0.55x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CFG leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CFG five years ago would be worth $15,060 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $14,973 for MTB. Over the past 12 months, CFG leads with a +76.5% total return vs MTB's +29.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CFG at 40.1% vs MTB's 26.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +7.3% | +12.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +29.4% | +76.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +101.2% | +174.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +49.7% | +50.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +128.1% | +260.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +26.2% | +40.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MTB and CFG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MTB is the less volatile stock with a 0.93 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CFG's 1.33 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CFG currently trades 95.4% from its 52-week high vs MTB's 91.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.93x | 1.33x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $239.00 | $68.79 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $172.33 | $37.93 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.0% | +95.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.2 | 54.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.0M | 4.6M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MTB and CFG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates MTB as "Hold" and CFG as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 10.4% upside for CFG (target: $72) vs 9.3% for MTB (target: $238). For income investors, CFG offers the higher dividend yield at 2.58% vs MTB's 2.46%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $237.71 | $72.42 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 48 | 38 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.5% | +2.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 9 | 3 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $5.35 | $1.70 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.2% | +4.8% |
MTB leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). CFG leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
MTB vs CFG: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MTB or CFG a better buy right now?
For growth investors, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the stronger pick with 7.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 3% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG). M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) offers the better valuation at 14. 9x trailing P/E (11. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG) a "Buy" — based on 38 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 — MTB or CFG?
On trailing P/E, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the cheapest at 14.
9x versus Citizens Financial Group, Inc. at 21. 7x. On forward P/E, M&T Bank Corporation is actually cheaper at 11. 7x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MTB or CFG?
Over the past 5 years, Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
(CFG) delivered a total return of +50. 6%, compared to +49. 7% for M&T Bank Corporation (MTB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CFG returned +260. 3% versus MTB's +128. 1%. 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 — MTB or CFG?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
93β versus Citizens Financial Group, Inc. 's 1. 33β — meaning CFG is approximately 43% more volatile than MTB relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 47% versus 51% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MTB or CFG?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is pulling ahead at 7.
2% versus 1. 3% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Citizens Financial Group, Inc. grew EPS -3. 2% year-over-year, compared to -7. 3% for M&T Bank 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 — MTB or CFG?
M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the more profitable company, earning 19.
3% net margin versus 12. 2% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 19. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MTB leads at 24. 7% versus 15. 3% for CFG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MTB leads at 64. 3%, 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 MTB or CFG more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) trades at 11.
7x forward P/E versus 12. 7x for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — 1. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CFG: 10. 4% to $72. 42.
08Which pays a better dividend — MTB or CFG?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG) offers the highest yield at 2. 6%, versus 2. 5% for M&T Bank Corporation (MTB).
09Is MTB or CFG better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
93), 2. 5% yield, +128. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MTB: +128. 1%, CFG: +260. 3%), 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 MTB and CFG?
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: MTB is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CFG is a mid-cap quality compounder 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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.