Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
RF vs FITB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
RF vs FITB — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $24.49B | $34.06B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $9.61B | $13.05B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $2.16B | $2.41B |
| Gross Margin | 74.6% | 59.2% |
| Operating Margin | 28.5% | 22.3% |
| Forward P/E | 10.8x | 16.5x |
| Total Debt | $4.88B | $18.97B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $10.91B | $3.01B |
RF vs FITB — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regions Financial C… (RF) | 100 | 249.4 | +149.4% |
| Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) | 100 | 262.2 | +162.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RF vs FITB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RF is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and bank quality.
- 284.7% 10Y total return vs FITB's 253.2%
- NIM 3.1% vs FITB's 2.6%
- Lower P/E (10.8x vs 16.5x)
FITB carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 1.09, yield 3.4%
- Rev growth 5.6%, EPS growth -2.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.09, Low D/E 96.6%, current ratio 0.38x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 5.6% NII/revenue growth vs RF's 2.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.8x vs 16.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs RF's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.09 vs RF's 1.10 | |
| Dividends | 3.7% yield, 13-year raise streak, vs FITB's 3.4% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +43.1% vs RF's +41.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs RF's 0.5% |
RF vs FITB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
RF vs FITB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RF leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FITB and RF operate at a comparable scale, with $13.0B and $9.6B in trailing revenue. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 22.4% (RF) to 17.7% (FITB).
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $9.6B | $13.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2.8B | $3.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $2.2B | $2.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $2.1B | $3.4B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +74.6% | +59.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +28.5% | +22.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +22.4% | +17.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +22.7% | +18.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +3.6% | +16.7% |
Valuation Metrics
RF leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.3x trailing earnings, RF trades at a 24% valuation discount to FITB's 16.2x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, RF's 6.6x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than FITB's 14.7x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $24.5B | $34.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $18.5B | $50.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 12.32x | 16.19x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 10.79x | 16.50x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.71x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.58x | 14.66x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.55x | 2.61x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.30x | 1.78x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 11.23x | 14.13x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RF leads this category, winning 8 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FITB delivers a 11.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $11 in annual profit, vs $11 for RF. RF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.26x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FITB's 0.97x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), RF scores 9/9 vs FITB's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.3% | +11.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.4% | +1.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.5% | +5.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.6% | +7.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 9 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.26x | 0.97x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$6.0B | $16.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $10.9B | $3.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4.9B | $19.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.32x | 0.75x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FITB leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in RF five years ago would be worth $14,374 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $13,767 for FITB. Over the past 12 months, FITB leads with a +43.1% total return vs RF's +41.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FITB at 31.3% vs RF's 23.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +3.3% | +7.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +41.3% | +43.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +90.0% | +126.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +43.7% | +37.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +284.7% | +253.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +23.9% | +31.3% |
Risk & Volatility
FITB leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FITB is the less volatile stock with a 1.09 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RF's 1.10 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.10x | 1.09x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $31.53 | $55.44 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $20.67 | $36.55 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +89.5% | +91.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 53.8 | 55.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 11.9M | 8.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — RF and FITB each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates RF as "Hold" and FITB as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 11.1% upside for FITB (target: $57) vs 9.1% for RF (target: $31). For income investors, RF offers the higher dividend yield at 3.67% vs FITB's 3.37%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $30.78 | $56.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 52 | 51 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.7% | +3.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 13 | 15 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.04 | $1.71 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +4.4% | +1.8% |
RF leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). FITB leads in 2 (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). 1 tied.
RF vs FITB: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RF or FITB a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) is the stronger pick with 5.
6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 5% for Regions Financial Corporation (RF). Regions Financial Corporation (RF) offers the better valuation at 12. 3x trailing P/E (10. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) a "Buy" — based on 51 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 — RF or FITB?
On trailing P/E, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the cheapest at 12.
3x versus Fifth Third Bancorp at 16. 2x. On forward P/E, Regions Financial Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 8x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RF or FITB?
Over the past 5 years, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) delivered a total return of +43.
7%, compared to +37. 7% for Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RF returned +284. 7% versus FITB's +253. 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 — RF or FITB?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
09β versus Regions Financial Corporation's 1. 10β — meaning RF is approximately 1% more volatile than FITB relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 26% versus 97% for Fifth Third Bancorp — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RF or FITB?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) is pulling ahead at 5.
6% versus 2. 5% for Regions Financial Corporation (RF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Regions Financial Corporation grew EPS 18. 7% year-over-year, compared to -2. 5% for Fifth Third Bancorp. 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 — RF or FITB?
Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the more profitable company, earning 22.
4% net margin versus 17. 7% for Fifth Third Bancorp — meaning it keeps 22. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RF leads at 28. 5% versus 22. 3% for FITB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RF leads at 74. 6%, 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 RF or FITB more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) trades at 10.
8x forward P/E versus 16. 5x for Fifth Third Bancorp — 5. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FITB: 11. 1% to $56. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — RF or FITB?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Regions Financial Corporation (RF) offers the highest yield at 3. 7%, versus 3. 4% for Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB).
09Is RF or FITB better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.
10), 3. 7% yield, +284. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RF: +284. 7%, FITB: +253. 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 RF and FITB?
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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.