PRK vs FULT

For growth investors, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the stronger pick with 5.

0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 9% for Park National Corporation (PRK). Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) offers the better valuation at 10. 5x trailing P/E (10. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Park National Corporation (PRK) a "Hold" — based on 3 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.

On trailing P/E, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is the cheapest at 10.

5x versus Park National Corporation at 15. 7x. On forward P/E, Fulton Financial Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 8x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Fulton Financial Corporation wins at 0. 77x versus Park National Corporation's 1. 94x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Park National Corporation (PRK) delivered a total return of +53.

4%, compared to +43. 3% for Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PRK returned +142. 0% versus FULT's +107. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Park National Corporation (PRK) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

82β versus Fulton Financial Corporation's 1. 13β — meaning FULT is approximately 37% more volatile than PRK relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Park National Corporation (PRK) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 37% for Fulton Financial Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) is pulling ahead at 5.

0% versus 2. 9% for Park National Corporation (PRK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fulton Financial Corporation grew EPS 32. 5% year-over-year, compared to 19. 2% for Park 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.

Park National Corporation (PRK) is the more profitable company, earning 27.

1% net margin versus 20. 7% for Fulton Financial Corporation — meaning it keeps 27. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PRK leads at 33. 3% versus 25. 7% for FULT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PRK leads at 82. 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.

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. 77x versus Park National Corporation's 1. 94x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) trades at 10. 8x forward P/E versus 14. 2x for Park National Corporation — 3. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FULT: 10. 1% to $24. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Fulton Financial Corporation (FULT) offers the highest yield at 3. 5%, versus 3. 2% for Park National Corporation (PRK).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Park National Corporation (PRK) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

82), 3. 2% yield, +142. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (PRK: +142. 0%, FULT: +107. 7%), 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.

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.

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.