Banks - Regional
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NBHC vs BOKF vs JPM vs FIS vs FISV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Diversified
Information Technology Services
Information Technology Services
NBHC vs BOKF vs JPM vs FIS vs FISV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Diversified | Information Technology Services | Information Technology Services |
| Market Cap | $1.67B | $8.18B | $896.00B | $20.26B | $28.76B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $584M | $3.33B | $280.33B | $11.66B | $21.09B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $110M | $578M | $57.05B | $2.67B | $3.20B |
| Gross Margin | 69.2% | 63.7% | 60.0% | 37.6% | 60.8% |
| Operating Margin | 24.4% | 21.4% | 25.9% | 17.9% | 24.4% |
| Forward P/E | 12.6x | 13.1x | 14.4x | 6.2x | 6.6x |
| Total Debt | $72M | $4.63B | $942.38B | $4.01B | $29.12B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $417M | $1.66B | $343.34B | $599M | $798M |
NBHC vs BOKF vs JPM vs FIS vs FISV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Bank Holdi… (NBHC) | 100 | 162.0 | +62.0% |
| BOK Financial Corpo… (BOKF) | 100 | 238.5 | +138.5% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 341.0 | +241.0% |
| Fidelity National I… (FIS) | 100 | 29.2 | -70.8% |
| Fiserv, Inc. (FISV) | 100 | 55.1 | -44.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NBHC vs BOKF vs JPM vs FIS vs FISV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NBHC is the clearest fit if your priority is bank quality.
- NIM 3.5% vs JPM's 2.2%
BOKF is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum is your priority.
- +42.7% vs FISV's -68.0%
JPM is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 465.8% 10Y total return vs BOKF's 159.2%
FIS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.61, yield 4.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.61, Low D/E 28.9%, current ratio 0.59x
- Beta 0.61, yield 4.2%, current ratio 0.59x
- 5.4% revenue growth vs NBHC's -1.7%
FISV ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 3.6%, EPS growth 17.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 6.1%
- PEG 0.19 vs BOKF's 1.60
- Lower P/E (6.6x vs 14.4x), PEG 0.19 vs 0.81
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 5.4% revenue growth vs NBHC's -1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.6x vs 14.4x), PEG 0.19 vs 0.81 | |
| Quality / Margins | 22.9% margin vs FISV's 15.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.61 vs JPM's 0.94, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.2% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs BOKF's 1.8%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +42.7% vs FISV's -68.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 7.5% ROA vs NBHC's 1.1%, ROIC 6.0% vs 7.4% |
NBHC vs BOKF vs JPM vs FIS vs FISV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NBHC vs BOKF vs JPM vs FIS vs FISV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FIS leads in 1 of 6 categories
FISV leads 1 • NBHC leads 1 • JPM leads 1 • BOKF leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FIS leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $280.3B annually — 480.1x NBHC's $584M. FIS is the more profitable business, keeping 22.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FISV's 15.2%. On growth, FIS holds the edge at +30.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $584M | $3.3B | $280.3B | $11.7B | $21.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $165M | $794M | $81.4B | $4.1B | $7.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $110M | $578M | $57.0B | $2.7B | $3.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $114M | $1.7B | $100.9B | $2.8B | $4.0B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +69.2% | +63.7% | +60.0% | +37.6% | +60.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +24.4% | +21.4% | +25.9% | +17.9% | +24.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +18.8% | +17.4% | +20.4% | +22.9% | +15.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +19.6% | +51.4% | +36.0% | +23.9% | +19.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | +30.1% | -2.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -42.5% | +1.8% | +16.0% | +30.6% | -29.1% |
Valuation Metrics
FISV leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 8.5x trailing earnings, FISV trades at a 84% valuation discount to FIS's 52.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FISV offers better value at 0.24x vs FIS's 2.14x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $8.2B | $896.0B | $20.3B | $28.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.3B | $11.2B | $1.50T | $23.7B | $57.1B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 15.35x | 14.66x | 16.00x | 52.27x | 8.48x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 12.61x | 13.09x | 14.40x | 6.24x | 6.62x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.79x | 0.90x | 2.14x | 0.24x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.05x | 14.05x | 18.36x | 6.50x | 6.44x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.86x | 2.46x | 3.20x | 1.90x | 1.36x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.21x | 1.39x | 2.47x | 1.46x | 1.14x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 12.60x | 14.22x | 8.88x | 7.21x | 6.63x |
Profitability & Efficiency
NBHC leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FIS delivers a 18.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $18 in annual profit, vs $8 for NBHC. NBHC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.05x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NBHC scores 7/9 vs FISV's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +8.1% | +9.8% | +15.9% | +18.4% | +12.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.1% | +1.1% | +1.3% | +7.5% | +4.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.4% | +5.2% | +4.5% | +6.0% | +8.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.6% | +8.4% | +8.9% | +6.6% | +10.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.05x | 0.78x | 2.60x | 0.29x | 1.13x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$345M | $3.0B | $599.0B | $3.4B | $28.3B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $417M | $1.7B | $343.3B | $599M | $798M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $72M | $4.6B | $942.4B | $4.0B | $29.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.83x | 0.59x | 0.74x | 21.16x | 6.39x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
JPM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in JPM five years ago would be worth $21,820 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,267 for FIS. Over the past 12 months, BOKF leads with a +42.7% total return vs FISV's -68.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors JPM at 33.6% vs FISV's -23.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +17.1% | +14.5% | -0.5% | -38.9% | -18.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +21.3% | +42.7% | +21.8% | -49.4% | -68.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +45.0% | +60.8% | +138.2% | -18.9% | -54.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +25.1% | +66.5% | +118.2% | -67.3% | -50.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +151.6% | +159.2% | +465.8% | -25.6% | +1.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +13.2% | +17.2% | +33.6% | -6.8% | -23.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — NBHC and FIS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FIS is the less volatile stock with a 0.61 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than JPM's 0.94 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NBHC currently trades 99.4% from its 52-week high vs FISV's 30.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.84x | 0.87x | 0.94x | 0.61x | 0.87x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $44.02 | $139.73 | $337.25 | $82.74 | $177.36 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $35.06 | $91.35 | $262.71 | $37.91 | $51.78 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +99.4% | +96.3% | +95.1% | +47.4% | +30.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.5 | 56.4 | 59.1 | 30.8 | 40.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 295K | 262K | 7.0M | 5.6M | 5.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — BOKF and FIS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NBHC as "Hold", BOKF as "Hold", JPM as "Buy", FIS as "Buy", FISV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 60.4% upside for FIS (target: $63) vs -1.9% for BOKF (target: $132). For income investors, FIS offers the higher dividend yield at 4.16% vs BOKF's 1.80%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $52.00 | $132.00 | $339.75 | $62.88 | $71.15 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 21 | 61 | 37 | 60 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.8% | +1.8% | +1.9% | +4.2% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 10 | 21 | 15 | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.21 | $2.42 | $5.95 | $1.63 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.9% | +5.1% | +3.9% | +7.0% | +20.5% |
FIS leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). FISV leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
NBHC vs BOKF vs JPM vs FIS vs FISV: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NBHC or BOKF or JPM or FIS or FISV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
(FIS) is the stronger pick with 5. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 7% for National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC). Fiserv, Inc. (FISV) offers the better valuation at 8. 5x trailing P/E (6. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) a "Buy" — based on 61 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 — NBHC or BOKF or JPM or FIS or FISV?
On trailing P/E, Fiserv, Inc.
(FISV) is the cheapest at 8. 5x versus Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. at 52. 3x. On forward P/E, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 2x — 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: Fiserv, Inc. wins at 0. 19x versus BOK Financial Corporation's 1. 60x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NBHC or BOKF or JPM or FIS or FISV?
Over the past 5 years, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) delivered a total return of +118. 2%, compared to -67. 3% for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: JPM returned +465. 8% versus FIS's -25. 6%. 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 — NBHC or BOKF or JPM or FIS or FISV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
(FIS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 61β versus JPMorgan Chase & Co. 's 0. 94β — meaning JPM is approximately 55% more volatile than FIS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NBHC or BOKF or JPM or FIS or FISV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
(FIS) is pulling ahead at 5. 4% versus -1. 7% for National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fiserv, Inc. grew EPS 17. 8% year-over-year, compared to -47. 2% for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FISV leads at 6. 1% annualised revenue growth. 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 — NBHC or BOKF or JPM or FIS or FISV?
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 4% net margin versus 3. 6% for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. — meaning it keeps 20. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FISV leads at 26. 9% versus 16. 5% for FIS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NBHC leads at 69. 2%, 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 NBHC or BOKF or JPM or FIS or FISV 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, Fiserv, Inc. (FISV) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 19x versus BOK Financial Corporation's 1. 60x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS) trades at 6. 2x forward P/E versus 14. 4x for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — 8. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FIS: 60. 4% to $62. 88.
08Which pays a better dividend — NBHC or BOKF or JPM or FIS or FISV?
In this comparison, FIS (4.
2% yield), NBHC (2. 8% yield), JPM (1. 9% yield), BOKF (1. 8% yield) pay a dividend. FISV does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NBHC or BOKF or JPM or FIS or FISV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 94), 1. 9% yield, +465. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (JPM: +465. 8%, FISV: +1. 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 NBHC and BOKF and JPM and FIS and FISV?
These companies operate in different sectors (NBHC (Financial Services) and BOKF (Financial Services) and JPM (Financial Services) and FIS (Technology) and FISV (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: NBHC is a small-cap deep-value stock; BOKF is a small-cap deep-value stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; FIS is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; FISV is a mid-cap deep-value stock. NBHC, BOKF, JPM, FIS pay a dividend while FISV does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.