Banks - Regional
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NBHC vs SFNC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
NBHC vs SFNC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $1.67B | $3.27B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $584M | $618M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $110M | $-398M |
| Gross Margin | 69.2% | 4.5% |
| Operating Margin | 24.4% | -85.4% |
| Forward P/E | 12.6x | 10.9x |
| Total Debt | $72M | $641M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $417M | $380M |
NBHC vs SFNC — 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% |
| Simmons First Natio… (SFNC) | 100 | 131.6 | +31.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NBHC vs SFNC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NBHC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth -1.7%, EPS growth -7.5%
- 151.6% 10Y total return vs SFNC's 26.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.84, Low D/E 5.2%, current ratio 0.27x
SFNC is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 14 yrs, beta 0.89, yield 3.8%
- Beta 0.89, yield 3.8%, current ratio 0.86x
- Lower P/E (10.9x vs 12.6x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -1.7% NII/revenue growth vs SFNC's -56.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.9x vs 12.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs SFNC's 0.9% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.84 vs SFNC's 0.89, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.8% yield, 14-year raise streak, vs NBHC's 2.8% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +23.0% vs NBHC's +21.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs SFNC's 0.9% |
NBHC vs SFNC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NBHC vs SFNC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NBHC leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SFNC and NBHC operate at a comparable scale, with $618M and $584M in trailing revenue. NBHC is the more profitable business, keeping 18.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SFNC's -64.3%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $584M | $618M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $165M | -$444M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $110M | -$398M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $114M | $410M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +69.2% | +4.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +24.4% | -85.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +18.8% | -64.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +19.6% | +66.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -42.5% | +42.1% |
Valuation Metrics
SFNC leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $3.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.3B | $3.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 15.35x | -7.63x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 12.61x | 10.90x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.05x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.86x | 5.21x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.21x | 0.89x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 12.60x | 7.73x |
Profitability & Efficiency
NBHC leads this category, winning 9 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
NBHC delivers a 8.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $8 in annual profit, vs $-11 for SFNC. NBHC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.05x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to SFNC's 0.19x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NBHC scores 7/9 vs SFNC's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +8.1% | -11.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.1% | -1.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.4% | -9.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.6% | -4.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.05x | 0.19x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$345M | $261M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $417M | $380M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $72M | $641M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.83x | -1.01x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NBHC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NBHC five years ago would be worth $12,505 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,847 for SFNC. Over the past 12 months, SFNC leads with a +23.0% total return vs NBHC's +21.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NBHC at 13.2% vs SFNC's 11.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +17.1% | +20.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +21.3% | +23.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +45.0% | +37.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +25.1% | -11.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +151.6% | +26.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +13.2% | +11.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — NBHC and SFNC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NBHC is the less volatile stock with a 0.84 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SFNC's 0.89 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.84x | 0.89x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $44.02 | $22.62 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $35.06 | $17.00 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +99.4% | +99.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.5 | 63.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 295K | 1.1M |
Analyst Outlook
SFNC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates NBHC as "Hold" and SFNC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 18.9% upside for NBHC (target: $52) vs 2.2% for SFNC (target: $23). For income investors, SFNC offers the higher dividend yield at 3.79% vs NBHC's 2.76%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $52.00 | $23.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 9 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.8% | +3.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 10 | 14 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.21 | $0.85 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.9% | 0.0% |
NBHC leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). SFNC leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook). 1 tied.
NBHC vs SFNC: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NBHC or SFNC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) is the stronger pick with -1.
7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -56. 7% for Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC). 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 Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) a "Buy" — based on 9 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 SFNC?
On forward P/E, Simmons First National Corporation is actually cheaper at 10.
9x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NBHC or SFNC?
Over the past 5 years, National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) delivered a total return of +25.
1%, compared to -11. 5% for Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NBHC returned +151. 6% versus SFNC's +26. 2%. 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 SFNC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
84β versus Simmons First National Corporation's 0. 89β — meaning SFNC is approximately 5% more volatile than NBHC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 19% for Simmons First National Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NBHC or SFNC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) is pulling ahead at -1.
7% versus -56. 7% for Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: National Bank Holdings Corporation grew EPS -7. 5% year-over-year, compared to -343. 8% for Simmons First National 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 SFNC?
National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) is the more profitable company, earning 18.
8% net margin versus -63. 4% for Simmons First National Corporation — meaning it keeps 18. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NBHC leads at 24. 4% versus -84. 2% for SFNC. 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 SFNC more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) trades at 10.
9x forward P/E versus 12. 6x for National Bank Holdings Corporation — 1. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NBHC: 18. 9% to $52. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — NBHC or SFNC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) offers the highest yield at 3. 8%, versus 2. 8% for National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC).
09Is NBHC or SFNC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
84), 2. 8% yield, +151. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NBHC: +151. 6%, SFNC: +26. 2%), 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 SFNC?
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; SFNC is a small-cap income-oriented 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.