Banks - Regional
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
RBKB vs ICE vs KO vs JPM vs FIS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Banks - Diversified
Information Technology Services
RBKB vs ICE vs KO vs JPM vs FIS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Banks - Diversified | Information Technology Services |
| Market Cap | $186M | $79.60B | $355.61B | $896.00B | $20.26B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $76M | $12.64B | $49.28B | $280.33B | $11.66B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $10M | $3.30B | $13.70B | $57.05B | $2.67B |
| Gross Margin | 68.2% | 61.9% | 61.7% | 60.0% | 37.6% |
| Operating Margin | 16.7% | 38.7% | 29.3% | 25.9% | 17.9% |
| Forward P/E | 18.2x | 17.3x | 25.3x | 14.4x | 6.2x |
| Total Debt | $30M | $20.28B | $45.49B | $942.38B | $4.01B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $17M | $837M | $10.27B | $343.34B | $599M |
RBKB vs ICE vs KO vs JPM vs FIS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rhinebeck Bancorp, … (RBKB) | 100 | 254.7 | +154.7% |
| Intercontinental Ex… (ICE) | 100 | 153.4 | +53.4% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 184.9 | +84.9% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 341.0 | +241.0% |
| Fidelity National I… (FIS) | 100 | 29.2 | -70.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RBKB vs ICE vs KO vs JPM vs FIS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RBKB carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 39.8%, EPS growth 215.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.29, Low D/E 22.1%, current ratio 493.23x
- Beta 0.29, current ratio 493.23x
- NIM 3.6% vs JPM's 2.2%
ICE lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
KO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- 27.8% margin vs RBKB's 13.2%
- 13.1% ROA vs RBKB's 0.8%, ROIC 15.8% vs 5.2%
JPM is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 465.8% 10Y total return vs KO's 121.1%
FIS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.61, yield 4.2%
- PEG 0.26 vs KO's 2.26
- Lower P/E (6.2x vs 14.4x), PEG 0.26 vs 0.81
- 4.2% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 39.8% NII/revenue growth vs KO's 1.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.2x vs 14.4x), PEG 0.26 vs 0.81 | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs RBKB's 13.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.29 vs JPM's 0.94, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.2% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +34.8% vs FIS's -49.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs RBKB's 0.8%, ROIC 15.8% vs 5.2% |
RBKB vs ICE vs KO vs JPM vs FIS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
RBKB vs ICE vs KO vs JPM vs FIS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FIS leads in 2 of 6 categories
KO leads 2 • RBKB leads 1 • ICE leads 0 • JPM leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FIS leads this category, winning 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $280.3B annually — 3696.1x RBKB's $76M. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to RBKB's 13.2%. On growth, FIS holds the edge at +30.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $76M | $12.6B | $49.3B | $280.3B | $11.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $14M | $6.5B | $15.5B | $81.4B | $4.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $10M | $3.3B | $13.7B | $57.0B | $2.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $11M | $4.3B | $12.6B | $100.9B | $2.8B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +68.2% | +61.9% | +61.7% | +60.0% | +37.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +16.7% | +38.7% | +29.3% | +25.9% | +17.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +13.2% | +26.1% | +27.8% | +20.4% | +22.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +14.9% | +33.9% | +25.5% | +36.0% | +23.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | +12.1% | — | +30.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +184.0% | +23.1% | +18.2% | +16.0% | +30.6% |
Valuation Metrics
FIS leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.0x trailing earnings, JPM trades at a 69% valuation discount to FIS's 52.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.90x vs ICE's 2.74x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $186M | $79.6B | $355.6B | $896.0B | $20.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $200M | $99.0B | $390.8B | $1.50T | $23.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 18.16x | 24.36x | 27.18x | 16.00x | 52.27x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 17.34x | 25.27x | 14.40x | 6.24x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.68x | 2.74x | 2.43x | 0.90x | 2.14x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 14.70x | 15.34x | 26.39x | 18.36x | 6.50x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.45x | 6.30x | 7.42x | 3.20x | 1.90x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.34x | 2.77x | 10.40x | 2.47x | 1.46x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 17.09x | 18.56x | 67.15x | 8.88x | 7.21x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 4 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 $8 for RBKB. RBKB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.22x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ICE scores 9/9 vs JPM's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +7.7% | +11.6% | +41.1% | +15.9% | +18.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.8% | +2.3% | +13.1% | +1.3% | +7.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.2% | +7.5% | +15.8% | +4.5% | +6.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +1.7% | +9.5% | +17.3% | +8.9% | +6.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.22x | 0.70x | 1.33x | 2.60x | 0.29x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $13M | $19.4B | $35.2B | $599.0B | $3.4B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $17M | $837M | $10.3B | $343.3B | $599M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $30M | $20.3B | $45.5B | $942.4B | $4.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.56x | 6.53x | 10.70x | 0.74x | 21.16x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
RBKB leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in JPM five years ago would be worth $21,820 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,267 for FIS. Over the past 12 months, RBKB leads with a +34.8% total return vs FIS's -49.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors RBKB at 36.1% vs FIS's -6.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +39.5% | -11.8% | +20.3% | -0.5% | -38.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +34.8% | -20.4% | +17.2% | +21.8% | -49.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +151.9% | +34.6% | +47.0% | +138.2% | -18.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +55.7% | +30.9% | +65.6% | +118.2% | -67.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.2% | +195.3% | +121.1% | +465.8% | -25.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +36.1% | +10.4% | +13.7% | +33.6% | -6.8% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 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 JPM's 0.94 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs FIS's 47.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.29x | 0.35x | -0.20x | 0.94x | 0.61x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $17.99 | $189.35 | $84.04 | $337.25 | $82.74 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $9.41 | $136.67 | $65.35 | $262.71 | $37.91 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +92.9% | +74.2% | +98.3% | +95.1% | +47.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 63.2 | 31.9 | 60.6 | 59.1 | 30.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 11K | 3.2M | 12.7M | 7.0M | 5.6M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — KO and FIS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ICE as "Buy", KO as "Buy", JPM as "Buy", FIS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 60.4% upside for FIS (target: $63) vs 4.2% for KO (target: $86). For income investors, FIS offers the higher dividend yield at 4.16% vs ICE's 1.38%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $194.00 | $86.13 | $339.75 | $62.88 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 36 | 48 | 61 | 37 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.4% | +2.5% | +1.9% | +4.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 13 | 56 | 15 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.93 | $2.04 | $5.95 | $1.63 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.1% | +1.7% | +0.2% | +3.9% | +7.0% |
FIS leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). KO leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Risk & Volatility). 1 tied.
RBKB vs ICE vs KO vs JPM vs FIS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RBKB or ICE or KO or JPM or FIS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Rhinebeck Bancorp, Inc.
(RBKB) is the stronger pick with 39. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) offers the better valuation at 16. 0x trailing P/E (14. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE) a "Buy" — based on 36 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 — RBKB or ICE or KO or JPM or FIS?
On trailing P/E, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the cheapest at 16. 0x versus Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. at 52. 3x. On forward P/E, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 2x — 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: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. wins at 0. 26x 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 — RBKB or ICE or KO or JPM or FIS?
Over the past 5 years, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) delivered a total return of +118. 2%, compared to -67. 3% for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: JPM returned +465. 8% versus FIS's -25. 6%. 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 — RBKB or ICE or KO or JPM or FIS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus JPMorgan Chase & Co. 's 0. 94β — meaning JPM is approximately -571% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Rhinebeck Bancorp, Inc. (RBKB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 22% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RBKB or ICE or KO or JPM or FIS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Rhinebeck Bancorp, Inc.
(RBKB) is pulling ahead at 39. 8% versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Rhinebeck Bancorp, Inc. grew EPS 215. 0% year-over-year, compared to -47. 2% for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, KO leads at 3. 7% annualised revenue growth. 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 — RBKB or ICE or KO or JPM or FIS?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus 3. 6% for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ICE leads at 38. 7% versus 16. 5% for FIS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RBKB leads at 68. 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 RBKB or ICE or KO or JPM or FIS 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, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 26x 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, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS) trades at 6. 2x forward P/E versus 25. 3x for The Coca-Cola Company — 19. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FIS: 60. 4% to $62. 88.
08Which pays a better dividend — RBKB or ICE or KO or JPM or FIS?
In this comparison, FIS (4.
2% yield), KO (2. 5% yield), JPM (1. 9% yield), ICE (1. 4% yield) pay a dividend. RBKB does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is RBKB or ICE or KO or JPM or FIS 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%, RBKB: +42. 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 RBKB and ICE and KO and JPM and FIS?
These companies operate in different sectors (RBKB (Financial Services) and ICE (Financial Services) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and JPM (Financial Services) and FIS (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: RBKB is a small-cap high-growth stock; ICE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; FIS is a mid-cap income-oriented stock. ICE, KO, JPM, FIS pay a dividend while RBKB does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.