Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
PFS vs NBTB vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
PFS vs NBTB vs WSFS vs TRMK 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 | $2.93B | $2.35B | $3.80B | $2.64B | $699M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.38B | $867M | $1.36B | $1.12B | $315M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $291M | $169M | $287M | $224M | $69M |
| Gross Margin | 62.7% | 72.1% | 74.7% | 71.0% | 69.6% |
| Operating Margin | 29.5% | 25.3% | 28.0% | 25.5% | 25.8% |
| Forward P/E | 9.5x | 10.8x | 11.8x | 11.5x | 9.6x |
| Total Debt | $2.52B | $327M | $303M | $1.12B | $117M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $211M | $185M | $1.33B | $668M | $52M |
PFS vs NBTB vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provident Financial… (PFS) | 100 | 172.4 | +72.4% |
| NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) | 100 | 143.9 | +43.9% |
| WSFS Financial Corp… (WSFS) | 100 | 260.4 | +160.4% |
| Trustmark Corporati… (TRMK) | 100 | 188.7 | +88.7% |
| Independent Bank Co… (IBCP) | 100 | 245.7 | +145.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: PFS vs NBTB vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
PFS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 21.3%, EPS growth 112.4%
- Lower P/E (9.5x vs 9.6x), PEG 0.96 vs 1.82
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs NBTB's 0.5% (lower = leaner)
- 4.3% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs NBTB's 3.2%
NBTB is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.89, yield 3.2%
WSFS is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.67 vs IBCP's 1.82
TRMK is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if bank quality is your priority.
- NIM 3.4% vs PFS's 3.0%
- 34.8% NII/revenue growth vs WSFS's -3.1%
IBCP ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 184.6% 10Y total return vs WSFS's 129.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.83, Low D/E 23.2%, current ratio 370.62x
- Beta 0.83, yield 3.0%, current ratio 370.62x
- Beta 0.83 vs PFS's 1.00, lower leverage
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 34.8% NII/revenue growth vs WSFS's -3.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.5x vs 9.6x), PEG 0.96 vs 1.82 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs NBTB's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.83 vs PFS's 1.00, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.3% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs NBTB's 3.2% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +39.5% vs NBTB's +9.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs NBTB's 0.5% |
PFS vs NBTB vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
PFS vs NBTB vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
PFS leads in 2 of 6 categories
WSFS leads 2 • NBTB leads 0 • TRMK leads 0 • IBCP leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PFS leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PFS is the larger business by revenue, generating $1.4B annually — 4.4x IBCP's $315M. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 21.7% (IBCP) to 19.5% (NBTB).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.4B | $867M | $1.4B | $1.1B | $315M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $458M | $241M | $408M | $323M | $89M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $291M | $169M | $287M | $224M | $69M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $429M | $225M | $214M | $230M | $70M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +62.7% | +72.1% | +74.7% | +71.0% | +69.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +29.5% | +25.3% | +28.0% | +25.5% | +25.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +21.1% | +19.5% | +21.1% | +20.0% | +21.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +31.2% | +25.2% | +15.7% | +20.7% | +22.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +73.0% | +39.5% | +22.9% | +5.4% | +2.3% |
Valuation Metrics
PFS leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.1x trailing earnings, PFS trades at a 29% valuation discount to WSFS's 14.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), WSFS offers better value at 0.81x vs IBCP's 1.97x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.9B | $2.4B | $3.8B | $2.6B | $699M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $5.2B | $2.5B | $2.8B | $3.1B | $764M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 10.08x | 13.53x | 14.16x | 12.13x | 10.38x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 9.51x | 10.80x | 11.79x | 11.50x | 9.56x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.02x | 1.92x | 0.81x | 1.50x | 1.97x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.83x | 10.35x | 6.80x | 9.49x | 9.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.12x | 2.71x | 2.79x | 2.36x | 2.22x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.03x | 1.21x | 1.44x | 1.28x | 1.41x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.80x | 10.75x | 17.79x | 11.39x | 9.96x |
Profitability & Efficiency
WSFS leads this category, winning 5 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 $10 for NBTB. WSFS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.11x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PFS's 0.89x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IBCP scores 8/9 vs WSFS's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +10.6% | +9.5% | +10.6% | +10.8% | +14.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.2% | +1.1% | +1.4% | +1.2% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.9% | +7.9% | +9.5% | +7.1% | +10.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +1.7% | +2.4% | +10.3% | +3.2% | +2.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.89x | 0.17x | 0.11x | 0.53x | 0.23x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.3B | $142M | -$1.0B | $448M | $65M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $211M | $185M | $1.3B | $668M | $52M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.5B | $327M | $303M | $1.1B | $117M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.80x | 1.05x | 1.30x | 0.75x | 0.91x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WSFS leads this category, winning 3 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 $10,788 for PFS. Over the past 12 months, PFS leads with a +39.5% total return vs NBTB's +9.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WSFS at 33.0% vs NBTB's 15.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +15.0% | +9.3% | +31.2% | +15.5% | +7.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +39.5% | +9.0% | +37.7% | +32.5% | +12.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +64.7% | +54.1% | +135.3% | +118.5% | +130.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +7.9% | +29.9% | +43.1% | +47.6% | +63.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +61.9% | +102.2% | +129.0% | +127.7% | +184.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +18.1% | +15.5% | +33.0% | +29.8% | +32.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — WSFS 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 PFS's 1.00 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WSFS currently trades 98.4% 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 | 1.00x | 0.89x | 0.89x | 0.94x | 0.83x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $23.98 | $46.92 | $73.22 | $45.99 | $37.39 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $15.92 | $39.20 | $49.92 | $33.39 | $29.63 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.7% | +96.1% | +98.4% | +97.6% | +90.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 56.2 | 57.3 | 64.0 | 56.0 | 50.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 871K | 236K | 385K | 392K | 176K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PFS and NBTB each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: PFS as "Buy", NBTB as "Hold", WSFS as "Hold", TRMK 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, PFS offers the higher dividend yield at 4.29% vs WSFS's 0.95%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $25.00 | $46.00 | $74.67 | $45.50 | $38.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 10 | 13 | 9 | 7 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.3% | +3.2% | +0.9% | +2.2% | +3.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.96 | $1.43 | $0.68 | $0.97 | $1.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.4% | +7.6% | +3.0% | +1.8% |
PFS leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). WSFS leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). 2 tied.
PFS vs NBTB vs WSFS vs TRMK vs IBCP: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is PFS or NBTB or WSFS or TRMK 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 -3. 1% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS). Provident Financial Services, Inc. (PFS) offers the better valuation at 10. 1x trailing P/E (9. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Provident Financial Services, Inc. (PFS) 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 — PFS or NBTB or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
On trailing P/E, Provident Financial Services, Inc.
(PFS) is the cheapest at 10. 1x versus WSFS Financial Corporation at 14. 2x. On forward P/E, Provident Financial Services, Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: WSFS Financial Corporation wins at 0. 67x versus Independent Bank Corporation's 1. 82x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — PFS or NBTB or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
Over the past 5 years, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) delivered a total return of +63.
7%, compared to +7. 9% for Provident Financial Services, Inc. (PFS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IBCP returned +184. 6% versus PFS's +61. 9%. 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 — PFS or NBTB or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
83β versus Provident Financial Services, Inc. 's 1. 00β — meaning PFS is approximately 22% more volatile than IBCP relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 89% for Provident Financial Services, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — PFS or NBTB or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Trustmark Corporation (TRMK) is pulling ahead at 34.
8% versus -3. 1% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Provident Financial Services, Inc. grew EPS 112. 4% year-over-year, compared to 1. 9% for Trustmark 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 — PFS or NBTB or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the more profitable company, earning 21.
7% net margin versus 19. 5% for NBT Bancorp Inc. — meaning it keeps 21. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PFS leads at 29. 5% versus 25. 3% for NBTB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WSFS leads at 74. 7%, 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 PFS or NBTB or WSFS or TRMK 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, WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 67x versus Independent Bank Corporation's 1. 82x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Provident Financial Services, Inc. (PFS) trades at 9. 5x forward P/E versus 11. 8x for WSFS Financial Corporation — 2. 3x 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 — PFS or NBTB or WSFS or TRMK or IBCP?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Provident Financial Services, Inc. (PFS) offers the highest yield at 4. 3%, versus 0. 9% for WSFS Financial Corporation (WSFS).
09Is PFS or NBTB or WSFS or TRMK 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%, PFS: +61. 9%), 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 PFS and NBTB and WSFS and TRMK 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: PFS is a small-cap high-growth stock; NBTB is a small-cap deep-value stock; WSFS is a small-cap deep-value stock; TRMK is a small-cap high-growth 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.