Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
SNV vs UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH vs FHN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
SNV vs UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH vs FHN — 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 | $6.95B | $9.98B | $10.08B | $7.66B | $12.02B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.42B | $4.44B | $4.23B | $2.14B | $4.99B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $800M | $883M | $824M | $566M | $982M |
| Gross Margin | 53.8% | 54.4% | 62.2% | 80.0% | 67.3% |
| Operating Margin | 17.7% | 20.3% | 26.4% | 34.2% | 25.7% |
| Forward P/E | 8.9x | 10.5x | 11.8x | 13.0x | 11.7x |
| Total Debt | $1.86B | $3.80B | $4.48B | $3.00B | $4.57B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $2.98B | $953M | $468M | $803M | $961M |
SNV vs UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH vs FHN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | Jan 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Synovus Financial C… (SNV) | 100 | 260.8 | +160.8% |
| UMB Financial Corpo… (UMBF) | 100 | 224.3 | +124.3% |
| Wintrust Financial … (WTFC) | 100 | 330.1 | +230.1% |
| Commerce Bancshares… (CBSH) | 100 | 104.8 | +4.8% |
| First Horizon Corpo… (FHN) | 100 | 255.6 | +155.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: SNV vs UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH vs FHN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
SNV is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and dividends is your priority.
- Lower P/E (8.9x vs 11.7x)
- 3.0% yield, 7-year raise streak, vs UMBF's 1.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
UMBF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for bank quality.
- NIM 3.5% vs SNV's 2.9%
- 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs FHN's 1.0%
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CBSH's 0.5% (lower = leaner)
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CBSH's 0.5%
WTFC is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 6.7%, EPS growth 12.1%
- 226.3% 10Y total return vs UMBF's 168.6%
- PEG 0.59 vs UMBF's 1.17
CBSH ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.70, yield 2.1%
- Beta 0.70 vs SNV's 1.25
FHN is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.10, Low D/E 50.0%, current ratio 0.96x
- Beta 1.10, yield 2.6%, current ratio 0.96x
- +34.8% vs CBSH's -15.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs FHN's 1.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.9x vs 11.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CBSH's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.70 vs SNV's 1.25 | |
| Dividends | 3.0% yield, 7-year raise streak, vs UMBF's 1.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +34.8% vs CBSH's -15.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CBSH's 0.5% |
SNV vs UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH vs FHN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
SNV vs UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH vs FHN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CBSH leads in 2 of 6 categories
SNV leads 1 • FHN leads 1 • UMBF leads 0 • WTFC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CBSH leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FHN is the larger business by revenue, generating $5.0B annually — 2.3x CBSH's $2.1B. CBSH is the more profitable business, keeping 26.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SNV's 14.1%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3.4B | $4.4B | $4.2B | $2.1B | $5.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.1B | $1.1B | $1.2B | $796M | $1.3B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $800M | $883M | $824M | $566M | $982M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $690M | $985M | $915M | $570M | $628M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +53.8% | +54.4% | +62.2% | +80.0% | +67.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +17.7% | +20.3% | +26.4% | +34.2% | +25.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +14.1% | +15.8% | +19.5% | +26.5% | +19.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +22.3% | +22.0% | +21.5% | +27.7% | +12.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.9% | +176.9% | +25.5% | +1.0% | +79.3% |
Valuation Metrics
SNV leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.8x trailing earnings, CBSH trades at a 23% valuation discount to SNV's 16.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), WTFC offers better value at 0.66x vs UMBF's 1.59x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6.9B | $10.0B | $10.1B | $7.7B | $12.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $5.8B | $12.8B | $14.1B | $9.9B | $15.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 16.52x | 14.35x | 13.02x | 12.78x | 13.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 8.91x | 10.52x | 11.78x | 13.02x | 11.69x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.59x | 0.66x | 1.13x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.77x | 12.10x | 11.67x | 12.80x | 11.69x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.03x | 2.25x | 2.38x | 3.58x | 2.41x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.38x | 1.30x | 1.40x | 1.90x | 1.34x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9.08x | 10.20x | 11.07x | 12.93x | 19.14x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CBSH leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CBSH delivers a 15.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $15 in annual profit, vs $11 for FHN. SNV carries lower financial leverage with a 0.35x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CBSH's 0.79x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), UMBF scores 7/9 vs SNV's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.7% | +11.7% | +11.3% | +15.3% | +10.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.3% | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.7% | +1.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.6% | +7.5% | +7.5% | +8.4% | +7.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.8% | +14.4% | +6.4% | +2.3% | +10.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.35x | 0.49x | 0.62x | 0.79x | 0.50x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$1.1B | $2.8B | $4.0B | $2.2B | $3.6B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $3.0B | $953M | $468M | $803M | $961M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.9B | $3.8B | $4.5B | $3.0B | $4.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.78x | 0.63x | 0.74x | 1.97x | 0.82x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FHN leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WTFC five years ago would be worth $20,180 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,673 for CBSH. Over the past 12 months, FHN leads with a +34.8% total return vs CBSH's -15.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FHN at 34.5% vs CBSH's 5.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | 0.0% | +12.9% | +5.8% | +0.3% | +3.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +13.2% | +31.4% | +32.4% | -15.1% | +34.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +93.4% | +134.7% | +138.3% | +18.0% | +143.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +17.7% | +42.6% | +101.8% | -13.3% | +48.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +107.6% | +168.6% | +226.3% | +104.6% | +121.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +24.6% | +32.9% | +33.6% | +5.7% | +34.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — UMBF and CBSH each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CBSH is the less volatile stock with a 0.70 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SNV's 1.25 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. UMBF currently trades 96.3% from its 52-week high vs CBSH's 78.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.25x | 1.19x | 1.16x | 0.70x | 1.10x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $61.06 | $136.11 | $162.96 | $66.35 | $26.56 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $43.59 | $98.16 | $113.39 | $46.99 | $18.55 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +82.0% | +96.3% | +92.3% | +78.6% | +93.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 44.4 | 72.4 | 56.1 | 56.8 | 57.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 0 | 606K | 438K | 1.2M | 5.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — SNV and UMBF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: SNV as "Buy", UMBF as "Buy", WTFC as "Buy", CBSH as "Hold", FHN as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 39.9% upside for SNV (target: $70) vs 12.2% for CBSH (target: $59). For income investors, SNV offers the higher dividend yield at 3.03% vs UMBF's 1.35%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $70.00 | $150.40 | $174.57 | $58.50 | $28.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 32 | 18 | 22 | 15 | 35 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.0% | +1.4% | — | +2.1% | +2.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 7 | 17 | 13 | 12 | 3 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.52 | $1.77 | — | $1.08 | $0.63 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +3.9% | +1.3% | 0.0% | +2.7% | +7.6% |
CBSH leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). SNV leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
SNV vs UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH vs FHN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is SNV or UMBF or WTFC or CBSH or FHN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) is the stronger pick with 68.
5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 0% for First Horizon Corporation (FHN). Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (CBSH) offers the better valuation at 12. 8x trailing P/E (13. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Synovus Financial Corp. (SNV) a "Buy" — based on 32 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 — SNV or UMBF or WTFC or CBSH or FHN?
On trailing P/E, Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
(CBSH) is the cheapest at 12. 8x versus Synovus Financial Corp. at 16. 5x. On forward P/E, Synovus Financial Corp. is actually cheaper at 8. 9x — 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: Wintrust Financial Corporation wins at 0. 59x versus UMB Financial Corporation's 1. 17x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — SNV or UMBF or WTFC or CBSH or FHN?
Over the past 5 years, Wintrust Financial Corporation (WTFC) delivered a total return of +101.
8%, compared to -13. 3% for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (CBSH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WTFC returned +227. 7% versus CBSH's +104. 0%. 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 — SNV or UMBF or WTFC or CBSH or FHN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
(CBSH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 70β versus Synovus Financial Corp. 's 1. 25β — meaning SNV is approximately 78% more volatile than CBSH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Synovus Financial Corp. (SNV) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 35% versus 79% for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — SNV or UMBF or WTFC or CBSH or FHN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) is pulling ahead at 68.
5% versus 1. 0% for First Horizon Corporation (FHN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: First Horizon Corporation grew EPS 38. 2% year-over-year, compared to -12. 4% for Synovus 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 — SNV or UMBF or WTFC or CBSH or FHN?
Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
(CBSH) is the more profitable company, earning 26. 5% net margin versus 14. 1% for Synovus Financial Corp. — meaning it keeps 26. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CBSH leads at 34. 2% versus 17. 7% for SNV. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CBSH leads at 80. 0%, 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 SNV or UMBF or WTFC or CBSH or FHN 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, Wintrust Financial Corporation (WTFC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 59x versus UMB Financial Corporation's 1. 17x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Synovus Financial Corp. (SNV) trades at 8. 9x forward P/E versus 13. 0x for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. — 4. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SNV: 39. 9% to $70. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — SNV or UMBF or WTFC or CBSH or FHN?
In this comparison, SNV (3.
0% yield), FHN (2. 6% yield), CBSH (2. 1% yield), UMBF (1. 4% yield) pay a dividend. WTFC does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is SNV or UMBF or WTFC or CBSH or FHN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
(CBSH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 70), 2. 1% yield, +104. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CBSH: +104. 0%, WTFC: +227. 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.
10What are the main differences between SNV and UMBF and WTFC and CBSH and FHN?
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: SNV is a small-cap deep-value stock; UMBF is a small-cap high-growth stock; WTFC is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CBSH is a small-cap deep-value stock; FHN is a mid-cap deep-value stock. SNV, UMBF, CBSH, FHN pay a dividend while WTFC 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.
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.