Banks - Regional
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NBHC vs SFNC vs HOMB vs IBCP vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
NBHC vs SFNC vs HOMB vs IBCP vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $1.67B | $3.27B | $5.58B | $730M | $355.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $584M | $618M | $1.37B | $310M | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $110M | $-398M | $475M | $69M | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 69.2% | 4.5% | 77.3% | 69.1% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | 24.4% | -85.4% | 43.8% | 26.2% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | 12.6x | 10.9x | 11.5x | 10.0x | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $72M | $641M | $935M | $117M | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $417M | $380M | $667M | $52M | $10.27B |
NBHC vs SFNC vs HOMB vs IBCP vs KO — 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% |
| Home Bancshares, In… (HOMB) | 100 | 183.7 | +83.7% |
| Independent Bank Co… (IBCP) | 100 | 238.9 | +138.9% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 184.9 | +84.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NBHC vs SFNC vs HOMB vs IBCP vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NBHC lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
SFNC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and dividends.
- Lower P/E (10.9x vs 25.3x)
- 3.8% yield, 14-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5%
- +23.0% vs HOMB's +3.0%
HOMB is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 0.66, yield 2.8%
- PEG 0.87 vs KO's 2.26
- NIM 3.8% vs SFNC's 2.9%
- 34.6% margin vs SFNC's -64.3%
IBCP is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 194.4% 10Y total return vs NBHC's 151.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.72, Low D/E 23.2%, current ratio 370.62x
- Beta 0.72, yield 2.9%, current ratio 370.62x
KO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 1.9%, EPS growth 23.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 3.7%
- 1.9% revenue growth vs SFNC's -56.7%
- 13.1% ROA vs SFNC's -1.6%, ROIC 15.8% vs -9.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 1.9% revenue growth vs SFNC's -56.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.9x vs 25.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 34.6% margin vs SFNC's -64.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.66 vs SFNC's 0.89 | |
| Dividends | 3.8% yield, 14-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +23.0% vs HOMB's +3.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs SFNC's -1.6%, ROIC 15.8% vs -9.1% |
NBHC vs SFNC vs HOMB vs IBCP vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NBHC vs SFNC vs HOMB vs IBCP vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
HOMB leads in 1 of 6 categories
SFNC leads 1 • KO leads 1 • IBCP leads 1 • NBHC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HOMB leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO is the larger business by revenue, generating $49.3B annually — 159.1x IBCP's $310M. HOMB is the more profitable business, keeping 34.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SFNC's -64.3%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $584M | $618M | $1.4B | $310M | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $165M | -$444M | $618M | $89M | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $110M | -$398M | $475M | $69M | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $114M | $410M | $311M | $70M | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +69.2% | +4.5% | +77.3% | +69.1% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +24.4% | -85.4% | +43.8% | +26.2% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +18.8% | -64.3% | +34.6% | +22.1% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +19.6% | +66.4% | +22.6% | +22.6% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -42.5% | +42.1% | +26.0% | +2.3% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
SFNC leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.9x trailing earnings, IBCP trades at a 60% valuation discount to KO's 27.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), HOMB offers better value at 0.89x vs KO's 2.43x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $3.3B | $5.6B | $730M | $355.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.3B | $3.5B | $5.9B | $795M | $390.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 15.35x | -7.63x | 11.72x | 10.85x | 27.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 12.61x | 10.90x | 11.47x | 9.99x | 25.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.89x | 2.06x | 2.43x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.05x | — | 9.47x | 9.78x | 26.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.86x | 5.21x | 4.06x | 2.32x | 7.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.21x | 0.89x | 1.30x | 1.47x | 10.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 12.60x | 7.73x | 11.58x | 10.41x | 67.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 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 KO's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IBCP scores 8/9 vs SFNC's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +8.1% | -11.5% | +11.4% | +14.2% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.1% | -1.6% | +2.1% | +1.3% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.4% | -9.1% | +8.7% | +10.2% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.6% | -4.2% | +11.5% | +2.6% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.05x | 0.19x | 0.22x | 0.23x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$345M | $261M | $268M | $65M | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $417M | $380M | $667M | $52M | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $72M | $641M | $935M | $117M | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.83x | -1.01x | 1.47x | 0.91x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IBCP leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IBCP five years ago would be worth $18,086 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,847 for SFNC. Over the past 12 months, SFNC leads with a +23.0% total return vs HOMB's +3.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IBCP at 28.1% vs HOMB's 9.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +17.1% | +20.7% | +2.7% | +12.0% | +20.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +21.3% | +23.0% | +3.0% | +16.4% | +17.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +45.0% | +37.1% | +31.2% | +110.4% | +47.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +25.1% | -11.5% | +22.1% | +80.9% | +65.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +151.6% | +26.2% | +57.7% | +194.4% | +121.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +13.2% | +11.1% | +9.5% | +28.1% | +13.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — SFNC and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 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. SFNC currently trades 99.5% from its 52-week high vs IBCP's 90.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.84x | 0.89x | 0.66x | 0.72x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $44.02 | $22.62 | $30.83 | $39.16 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $35.06 | $17.00 | $25.50 | $29.63 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +99.4% | +99.5% | +91.6% | +90.6% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.5 | 63.7 | 63.7 | 61.2 | 60.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 295K | 1.1M | 1.4M | 135K | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — SFNC and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NBHC as "Hold", SFNC as "Buy", HOMB as "Hold", IBCP as "Hold", KO 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 KO's 2.46%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $52.00 | $23.00 | $31.50 | $38.00 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 9 | 19 | 7 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.8% | +3.8% | +2.8% | +2.9% | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 10 | 14 | 15 | 11 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.21 | $0.85 | $0.80 | $1.03 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.9% | 0.0% | +1.5% | +1.7% | +0.2% |
HOMB leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). SFNC leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
NBHC vs SFNC vs HOMB vs IBCP vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NBHC or SFNC or HOMB or IBCP or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger pick with 1.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -56. 7% for Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC). Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) offers the better valuation at 10. 9x trailing P/E (10. 0x 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 or HOMB or IBCP or KO?
On trailing P/E, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the cheapest at 10.
9x versus The Coca-Cola Company at 27. 2x. On forward P/E, Independent Bank Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Home Bancshares, Inc. wins at 0. 87x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NBHC or SFNC or HOMB or IBCP or KO?
Over the past 5 years, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) delivered a total return of +80.
9%, compared to -11. 5% for Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IBCP returned +194. 4% 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 or HOMB or IBCP or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Simmons First National Corporation's 0. 89β — meaning SFNC is approximately -543% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, National Bank Holdings Corporation (NBHC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 133% for The Coca-Cola Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NBHC or SFNC or HOMB or IBCP or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is pulling ahead at 1.
9% versus -56. 7% for Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Coca-Cola Company grew EPS 23. 6% 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 or HOMB or IBCP or KO?
Home Bancshares, Inc.
(HOMB) is the more profitable company, earning 34. 6% net margin versus -63. 4% for Simmons First National Corporation — meaning it keeps 34. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: HOMB leads at 43. 8% versus -84. 2% for SFNC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HOMB leads at 77. 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 NBHC or SFNC or HOMB or IBCP or KO 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, Home Bancshares, Inc. (HOMB) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 87x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) trades at 10. 0x forward P/E versus 25. 3x for The Coca-Cola Company — 15. 3x 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 or HOMB or IBCP or KO?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) offers the highest yield at 3. 8%, versus 2. 5% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO).
09Is NBHC or SFNC or HOMB or IBCP or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, 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 and HOMB and IBCP and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (NBHC (Financial Services) and SFNC (Financial Services) and HOMB (Financial Services) and IBCP (Financial Services) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), 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; SFNC is a small-cap income-oriented stock; HOMB is a small-cap deep-value stock; IBCP is a small-cap deep-value stock; KO is a large-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.