Banks - Regional
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NBHC vs ICE
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges
NBHC vs ICE — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges |
| Market Cap | $1.67B | $79.60B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $584M | $12.64B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $110M | $3.30B |
| Gross Margin | 69.2% | 61.9% |
| Operating Margin | 24.4% | 38.7% |
| Forward P/E | 12.6x | 17.3x |
| Total Debt | $72M | $20.28B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $417M | $837M |
NBHC vs ICE — 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% |
| Intercontinental Ex… (ICE) | 100 | 153.4 | +53.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NBHC vs ICE
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 value and dividends.
- Lower P/E (12.6x vs 17.3x)
- 2.8% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs ICE's 1.4%
- +21.3% vs ICE's -20.4%
ICE carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 13 yrs, beta 0.35, yield 1.4%
- Rev growth 7.5%, EPS growth 20.7%
- 195.3% 10Y total return vs NBHC's 151.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 7.5% NII/revenue growth vs NBHC's -1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (12.6x vs 17.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.2% vs NBHC's 0.4% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.35 vs NBHC's 0.84 | |
| Dividends | 2.8% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs ICE's 1.4% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +21.3% vs ICE's -20.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.2% vs NBHC's 0.4% |
NBHC vs ICE — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NBHC vs ICE — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ICE leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ICE is the larger business by revenue, generating $12.6B annually — 21.6x NBHC's $584M. ICE is the more profitable business, keeping 26.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NBHC's 18.8%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $584M | $12.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $165M | $6.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $110M | $3.3B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $114M | $4.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +69.2% | +61.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +24.4% | +38.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +18.8% | +26.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +19.6% | +33.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -42.5% | +23.1% |
Valuation Metrics
NBHC leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.3x trailing earnings, NBHC trades at a 37% valuation discount to ICE's 24.4x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, NBHC's 8.1x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than ICE's 15.3x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $79.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.3B | $99.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 15.35x | 24.36x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 12.61x | 17.34x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 2.74x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.05x | 15.34x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.86x | 6.30x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.21x | 2.77x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 12.60x | 18.56x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ICE leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ICE delivers a 11.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $12 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 ICE's 0.70x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ICE scores 9/9 vs NBHC's 7/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +8.1% | +11.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.1% | +2.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.4% | +7.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.6% | +9.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 9 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.05x | 0.70x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$345M | $19.4B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $417M | $837M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $72M | $20.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.83x | 6.53x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NBHC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ICE five years ago would be worth $13,085 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $12,505 for NBHC. Over the past 12 months, NBHC leads with a +21.3% total return vs ICE's -20.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NBHC at 13.2% vs ICE's 10.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +17.1% | -11.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +21.3% | -20.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +45.0% | +34.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +25.1% | +30.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +151.6% | +195.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +13.2% | +10.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — NBHC and ICE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ICE is the less volatile stock with a 0.35 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NBHC's 0.84 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 ICE's 74.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.84x | 0.35x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $44.02 | $189.35 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $35.06 | $136.67 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +99.4% | +74.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.5 | 31.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 295K | 3.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — NBHC and ICE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates NBHC as "Hold" and ICE as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 38.0% upside for ICE (target: $194) vs 18.9% for NBHC (target: $52). For income investors, NBHC offers the higher dividend yield at 2.76% vs ICE's 1.38%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $52.00 | $194.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 36 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.8% | +1.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 10 | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.21 | $1.93 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.9% | +1.7% |
ICE leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). NBHC leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). 2 tied.
NBHC vs ICE: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NBHC or ICE a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
(ICE) is the stronger pick with 7. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 7% for National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC). National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) offers the better valuation at 15. 3x trailing P/E (12. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE) a "Buy" — based on 36 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 ICE?
On trailing P/E, National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) is the cheapest at 15.
3x versus Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. at 24. 4x. On forward P/E, National Bank Holdings Corporation is actually cheaper at 12. 6x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NBHC or ICE?
Over the past 5 years, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
(ICE) delivered a total return of +30. 9%, compared to +25. 1% for National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ICE returned +195. 3% versus NBHC's +151. 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 ICE?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
(ICE) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 35β versus National Bank Holdings Corporation's 0. 84β — meaning NBHC is approximately 140% more volatile than ICE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 70% for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NBHC or ICE?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
(ICE) is pulling ahead at 7. 5% versus -1. 7% for National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. grew EPS 20. 7% year-over-year, compared to -7. 5% for National Bank Holdings 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 — NBHC or ICE?
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
(ICE) is the more profitable company, earning 26. 1% net margin versus 18. 8% for National Bank Holdings Corporation — meaning it keeps 26. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ICE leads at 38. 7% versus 24. 4% for NBHC. 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 ICE more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) trades at 12.
6x forward P/E versus 17. 3x for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. — 4. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ICE: 38. 0% to $194. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — NBHC or ICE?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) offers the highest yield at 2. 8%, versus 1. 4% for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE).
09Is NBHC or ICE better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
(ICE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 35), 1. 4% yield, +195. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ICE: +195. 3%, NBHC: +151. 6%), 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 ICE?
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: NBHC is a small-cap deep-value stock; ICE 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.