Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MTB vs RF vs CFG vs HBAN vs FITB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
MTB vs RF vs CFG vs HBAN vs FITB — 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 | $32.74B | $24.27B | $27.70B | $25.63B | $33.27B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $13.40B | $9.61B | $12.35B | $12.48B | $13.05B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $2.77B | $2.16B | $1.70B | $2.21B | $2.41B |
| Gross Margin | 64.3% | 74.6% | 57.6% | 61.7% | 59.2% |
| Operating Margin | 24.7% | 28.5% | 15.3% | 21.5% | 22.3% |
| Forward P/E | 11.4x | 10.7x | 12.4x | 11.1x | 16.1x |
| Total Debt | $13.66B | $4.88B | $12.40B | $18.48B | $18.97B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20.78B | $10.91B | $11.24B | $1.78B | $3.01B |
MTB vs RF vs CFG vs HBAN vs FITB — 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 | 201.6 | +101.6% |
| Regions Financial C… (RF) | 100 | 247.2 | +147.2% |
| Citizens Financial … (CFG) | 100 | 266.4 | +166.4% |
| Huntington Bancshar… (HBAN) | 100 | 182.1 | +82.1% |
| Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) | 100 | 256.2 | +156.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MTB vs RF vs CFG vs HBAN vs FITB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MTB has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in sleep-well-at-night and bank quality.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.93, Low D/E 47.1%, current ratio 0.22x
- NIM 3.3% vs CFG's 2.6%
- 7.2% NII/revenue growth vs CFG's 1.3%
- Beta 0.93 vs CFG's 1.33, lower leverage
RF ranks third and is worth considering specifically for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.62 vs MTB's 9.05
- Lower P/E (10.7x vs 16.1x)
CFG is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 257.8% 10Y total return vs RF's 283.3%
- +73.3% vs HBAN's +12.4%
HBAN is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.
- 3.7% yield, vs FITB's 3.4%
FITB is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and growth exposure is your priority.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 1.09, yield 3.4%
- Rev growth 5.6%, EPS growth -2.5%
- Beta 1.09, yield 3.4%, current ratio 0.38x
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs RF's 0.5% (lower = leaner)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 7.2% NII/revenue growth vs CFG's 1.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.7x vs 16.1x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs RF's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.93 vs CFG's 1.33, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.7% yield, vs FITB's 3.4% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +73.3% vs HBAN's +12.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs RF's 0.5% |
MTB vs RF vs CFG vs HBAN vs FITB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
MTB vs RF vs CFG vs HBAN vs FITB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
RF leads in 2 of 6 categories
CFG leads 1 • MTB leads 0 • HBAN leads 0 • FITB leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RF leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MTB and RF operate at a comparable scale, with $13.4B and $9.6B in trailing revenue. RF is the more profitable business, keeping 22.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CFG's 12.2%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $13.4B | $9.6B | $12.3B | $12.5B | $13.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $4.0B | $2.8B | $2.6B | $3.1B | $3.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $2.8B | $2.2B | $1.7B | $2.2B | $2.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4.1B | $2.1B | $2.7B | $2.3B | $3.4B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +64.3% | +74.6% | +57.6% | +61.7% | +59.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +24.7% | +28.5% | +15.3% | +21.5% | +22.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +19.3% | +22.4% | +12.2% | +17.7% | +17.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +25.3% | +22.7% | +15.2% | +18.2% | +18.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +19.9% | +3.6% | +38.2% | -11.8% | +16.7% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — RF and HBAN each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 11.6x trailing earnings, HBAN trades at a 45% valuation discount to CFG's 21.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), RF offers better value at 0.70x vs MTB's 11.53x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $32.7B | $24.3B | $27.7B | $25.6B | $33.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $25.6B | $18.2B | $28.9B | $42.3B | $49.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 14.55x | 12.21x | 21.19x | 11.65x | 15.82x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.43x | 10.70x | 12.39x | 11.10x | 16.12x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 11.53x | 0.70x | — | 0.77x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.71x | 6.50x | 12.10x | 15.75x | 14.43x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.44x | 2.53x | 2.24x | 2.05x | 2.55x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.23x | 1.29x | 1.20x | 1.00x | 1.74x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9.65x | 11.13x | 14.74x | 11.25x | 13.81x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RF leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FITB delivers a 11.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $11 in annual profit, vs $7 for CFG. RF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.26x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FITB's 0.97x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), RF scores 9/9 vs MTB's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.7% | +11.3% | +6.6% | +10.0% | +11.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.3% | +1.4% | +0.8% | +1.0% | +1.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.0% | +8.5% | +3.8% | +5.1% | +5.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.2% | +9.6% | +4.4% | +4.5% | +7.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.47x | 0.26x | 0.51x | 0.76x | 0.97x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$7.1B | -$6.0B | $1.2B | $16.7B | $16.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20.8B | $10.9B | $11.2B | $1.8B | $3.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $13.7B | $4.9B | $12.4B | $18.5B | $19.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.98x | 1.32x | 0.55x | 0.62x | 0.75x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CFG leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CFG five years ago would be worth $14,687 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $12,203 for HBAN. Over the past 12 months, CFG leads with a +73.3% total return vs HBAN's +12.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CFG at 39.1% vs HBAN's 22.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +5.1% | +2.4% | +9.7% | -6.5% | +4.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +25.9% | +39.6% | +73.3% | +12.4% | +39.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +97.4% | +88.5% | +169.3% | +85.1% | +121.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +46.5% | +41.3% | +46.9% | +22.0% | +33.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +125.8% | +283.3% | +257.8% | +121.5% | +249.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +25.4% | +23.5% | +39.1% | +22.8% | +30.4% |
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 93.3% from its 52-week high vs HBAN's 83.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.93x | 1.10x | 1.33x | 1.09x | 1.09x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $239.00 | $31.53 | $68.79 | $19.46 | $55.44 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $172.95 | $20.67 | $37.93 | $14.87 | $36.55 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +89.1% | +88.7% | +93.3% | +83.2% | +89.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 53.3 | 55.5 | 60.2 | 53.4 | 58.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.0M | 11.8M | 4.5M | 24.3M | 8.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — HBAN and FITB each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MTB as "Hold", RF as "Hold", CFG as "Buy", HBAN as "Buy", FITB as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 25.9% upside for HBAN (target: $20) vs 10.1% for RF (target: $31). For income investors, HBAN offers the higher dividend yield at 3.73% vs MTB's 2.51%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $237.71 | $30.78 | $72.42 | $20.38 | $56.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 48 | 52 | 38 | 48 | 51 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.5% | +3.7% | +2.6% | +3.7% | +3.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 9 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 15 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $5.35 | $1.04 | $1.70 | $0.60 | $1.71 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.3% | +4.4% | +4.9% | 0.0% | +1.9% |
RF leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). CFG leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
MTB vs RF vs CFG vs HBAN vs FITB: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MTB or RF or CFG or HBAN or FITB 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). Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) offers the better valuation at 11. 6x trailing P/E (11. 1x 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 RF or CFG or HBAN or FITB?
On trailing P/E, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) is the cheapest at 11.
6x versus Citizens Financial Group, Inc. at 21. 2x. On forward P/E, Regions Financial Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 7x — 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: Regions Financial Corporation wins at 0. 62x versus M&T Bank Corporation's 9. 05x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MTB or RF or CFG or HBAN or FITB?
Over the past 5 years, Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
(CFG) delivered a total return of +46. 9%, compared to +22. 0% for Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RF returned +283. 3% versus HBAN's +121. 5%. 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 RF or CFG or HBAN or FITB?
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, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 26% versus 97% for Fifth Third Bancorp — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MTB or RF or CFG or HBAN or FITB?
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: Regions Financial Corporation grew EPS 18. 7% 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 RF or CFG or HBAN or FITB?
Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the more profitable company, earning 22.
4% net margin versus 12. 2% for Citizens Financial Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 22. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RF leads at 28. 5% versus 15. 3% for CFG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RF leads at 74. 6%, 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 RF or CFG or HBAN or FITB 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, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 62x versus M&T Bank Corporation's 9. 05x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) trades at 10. 7x forward P/E versus 16. 1x for Fifth Third Bancorp — 5. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for HBAN: 25. 9% to $20. 38.
08Which pays a better dividend — MTB or RF or CFG or HBAN or FITB?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) offers the highest yield at 3. 7%, versus 2. 5% for M&T Bank Corporation (MTB).
09Is MTB or RF or CFG or HBAN or FITB 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, +125. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MTB: +125. 8%, CFG: +257. 8%), 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 RF and CFG and HBAN and FITB?
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; RF is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CFG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; HBAN is a mid-cap deep-value stock; FITB is a mid-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.