Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
OCFC vs NBTB vs TRMK vs FULT vs IBCP
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
OCFC vs NBTB vs TRMK vs FULT vs IBCP — 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 | $1.08B | $2.35B | $2.64B | $4.13B | $699M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $656M | $867M | $1.12B | $1.89B | $315M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $71M | $169M | $224M | $392M | $69M |
| Gross Margin | 54.5% | 72.1% | 71.0% | 67.4% | 69.6% |
| Operating Margin | 14.1% | 25.3% | 25.5% | 25.7% | 25.8% |
| Forward P/E | 9.9x | 10.8x | 11.5x | 10.6x | 9.6x |
| Total Debt | $1.63B | $327M | $1.12B | $1.30B | $117M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $135M | $185M | $668M | $271M | $52M |
OCFC vs NBTB vs TRMK vs FULT vs IBCP — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| OceanFirst Financia… (OCFC) | 100 | 113.1 | +13.1% |
| NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) | 100 | 143.9 | +43.9% |
| Trustmark Corporati… (TRMK) | 100 | 188.7 | +88.7% |
| Fulton Financial Co… (FULT) | 100 | 191.3 | +91.3% |
| Independent Bank Co… (IBCP) | 100 | 245.7 | +145.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: OCFC vs NBTB vs TRMK vs FULT vs IBCP
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
OCFC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and dividends.
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs NBTB's 0.5% (lower = leaner)
- 4.5% yield, vs NBTB's 3.2%
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs NBTB's 0.5%
NBTB is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.89, yield 3.2%
- Rev growth 10.4%, EPS growth 12.5%
TRMK is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if bank quality is your priority.
- NIM 3.4% vs OCFC's 2.5%
- 34.8% NII/revenue growth vs OCFC's -4.7%
- +32.5% vs NBTB's +9.0%
FULT is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.76 vs OCFC's 3.57
IBCP ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 184.6% 10Y total return vs TRMK's 127.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.83, Low D/E 23.2%, current ratio 370.62x
- Beta 0.83, yield 3.0%, current ratio 370.62x
- Lower P/E (9.6x vs 11.5x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 34.8% NII/revenue growth vs OCFC's -4.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.6x vs 11.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs NBTB's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.83 vs FULT's 1.13, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.5% yield, vs NBTB's 3.2% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +32.5% vs NBTB's +9.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs NBTB's 0.5% |
OCFC vs NBTB vs TRMK vs FULT vs IBCP — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
OCFC vs NBTB vs TRMK vs FULT vs IBCP — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
IBCP leads in 3 of 6 categories
OCFC leads 0 • NBTB leads 0 • TRMK leads 0 • FULT leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — NBTB and IBCP each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FULT is the larger business by revenue, generating $1.9B annually — 6.0x IBCP's $315M. IBCP is the more profitable business, keeping 21.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to OCFC's 10.8%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $656M | $867M | $1.1B | $1.9B | $315M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $103M | $241M | $323M | $529M | $89M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $71M | $169M | $224M | $392M | $69M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $80M | $225M | $230M | $267M | $70M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +54.5% | +72.1% | +71.0% | +67.4% | +69.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +14.1% | +25.3% | +25.5% | +25.7% | +25.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +10.8% | +19.5% | +20.0% | +20.7% | +21.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +12.1% | +25.2% | +20.7% | +15.0% | +22.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -36.1% | +39.5% | +5.4% | +47.2% | +2.3% |
Valuation Metrics
IBCP leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.3x trailing earnings, FULT trades at a 36% valuation discount to OCFC's 16.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FULT offers better value at 0.74x vs OCFC's 5.80x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.1B | $2.4B | $2.6B | $4.1B | $699M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.6B | $2.5B | $3.1B | $5.2B | $764M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 16.14x | 13.53x | 12.13x | 10.31x | 10.38x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 9.93x | 10.80x | 11.50x | 10.61x | 9.56x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 5.80x | 1.92x | 1.50x | 0.74x | 1.97x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 27.70x | 10.35x | 9.49x | 9.74x | 9.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.65x | 2.71x | 2.36x | 2.18x | 2.22x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.65x | 1.21x | 1.28x | 1.13x | 1.41x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 13.63x | 10.75x | 11.39x | 14.52x | 9.96x |
Profitability & Efficiency
IBCP leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
IBCP delivers a 14.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $14 in annual profit, vs $4 for OCFC. NBTB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.17x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to OCFC's 0.98x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IBCP scores 8/9 vs FULT's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +4.3% | +9.5% | +10.8% | +11.6% | +14.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.5% | +1.1% | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +2.2% | +7.9% | +7.1% | +7.5% | +10.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.7% | +2.4% | +3.2% | +9.5% | +2.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.98x | 0.17x | 0.53x | 0.37x | 0.23x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.5B | $142M | $448M | $1.0B | $65M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $135M | $185M | $668M | $271M | $52M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.6B | $327M | $1.1B | $1.3B | $117M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.33x | 1.05x | 0.75x | 0.84x | 0.91x |
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 $16,369 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $10,246 for OCFC. Over the past 12 months, TRMK leads with a +32.5% total return vs NBTB's +9.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IBCP at 32.1% vs NBTB's 15.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +8.1% | +9.3% | +15.5% | +11.1% | +7.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +20.5% | +9.0% | +32.5% | +29.6% | +12.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +55.7% | +54.1% | +118.5% | +130.4% | +130.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +2.5% | +29.9% | +47.6% | +41.4% | +63.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +45.4% | +102.2% | +127.7% | +106.1% | +184.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +15.9% | +15.5% | +29.8% | +32.1% | +32.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TRMK and IBCP each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
IBCP is the less volatile stock with a 0.83 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FULT's 1.13 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TRMK currently trades 97.6% from its 52-week high vs IBCP's 90.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.05x | 0.89x | 0.94x | 1.13x | 0.83x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $20.61 | $46.92 | $45.99 | $22.99 | $37.39 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $16.09 | $39.20 | $33.39 | $16.60 | $29.63 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.6% | +96.1% | +97.6% | +93.3% | +90.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 53.8 | 57.3 | 56.0 | 55.8 | 50.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 662K | 236K | 392K | 2.0M | 176K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — OCFC and NBTB each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: OCFC as "Hold", NBTB as "Hold", TRMK as "Hold", FULT as "Hold", IBCP as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 11.9% upside for IBCP (target: $38) vs 1.4% for TRMK (target: $46). For income investors, OCFC offers the higher dividend yield at 4.45% vs TRMK's 2.15%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $19.67 | $46.00 | $45.50 | $24.00 | $38.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 8 | 10 | 9 | 20 | 7 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.5% | +3.2% | +2.2% | +3.6% | +3.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.84 | $1.43 | $0.97 | $0.77 | $1.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +7.6% | +0.4% | +3.0% | +1.6% | +1.8% |
IBCP leads in 3 of 6 categories — strongest in Valuation Metrics and Profitability & Efficiency. 3 categories are tied.
OCFC vs NBTB vs TRMK vs FULT vs IBCP: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is OCFC or NBTB or TRMK or FULT or IBCP a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Trustmark Corporation (TRMK) is the stronger pick with 34.
8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -4. 7% for OceanFirst Financial Corp. (OCFC). Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) offers the better valuation at 10. 3x trailing P/E (10. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate OceanFirst Financial Corp. (OCFC) a "Hold" — based on 8 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 — OCFC or NBTB or TRMK or FULT or IBCP?
On trailing P/E, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the cheapest at 10.
3x versus OceanFirst Financial Corp. at 16. 1x. On forward P/E, Independent Bank Corporation is actually cheaper at 9. 6x — 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: Fulton Financial Corporation wins at 0. 76x versus OceanFirst Financial Corp. 's 3. 57x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — OCFC or NBTB or TRMK or FULT or IBCP?
Over the past 5 years, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) delivered a total return of +63.
7%, compared to +2. 5% for OceanFirst Financial Corp. (OCFC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IBCP returned +184. 6% versus OCFC's +45. 4%. 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 — OCFC or NBTB or TRMK or FULT or IBCP?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
83β versus Fulton Financial Corporation's 1. 13β — meaning FULT is approximately 37% more volatile than IBCP relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 98% for OceanFirst Financial Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — OCFC or NBTB or TRMK or FULT or IBCP?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Trustmark Corporation (TRMK) is pulling ahead at 34.
8% versus -4. 7% for OceanFirst Financial Corp. (OCFC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fulton Financial Corporation grew EPS 32. 5% year-over-year, compared to -29. 1% for OceanFirst Financial Corp.. 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 — OCFC or NBTB or TRMK or FULT or IBCP?
Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the more profitable company, earning 21.
7% net margin versus 10. 8% for OceanFirst Financial Corp. — meaning it keeps 21. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IBCP leads at 25. 8% versus 14. 1% for OCFC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NBTB leads at 72. 1%, 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 OCFC or NBTB or TRMK or FULT or IBCP 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, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 76x versus OceanFirst Financial Corp. 's 3. 57x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) trades at 9. 6x forward P/E versus 11. 5x for Trustmark Corporation — 1. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IBCP: 11. 9% to $38. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — OCFC or NBTB or TRMK or FULT or IBCP?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
OceanFirst Financial Corp. (OCFC) offers the highest yield at 4. 5%, versus 2. 2% for Trustmark Corporation (TRMK).
09Is OCFC or NBTB or TRMK or FULT or IBCP better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
83), 3. 0% yield, +184. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (IBCP: +184. 6%, FULT: +106. 1%), 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 OCFC and NBTB and TRMK and FULT and IBCP?
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: OCFC is a small-cap deep-value stock; NBTB is a small-cap deep-value stock; TRMK is a small-cap high-growth stock; FULT is a small-cap deep-value stock; IBCP is a small-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.