TFC
Truist Financial Corporation
Banks - Regional
Market Cap$66.85B
5Y Perf.+38.1%
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Try these comparisons:
Stock Comparison
TFC vs RF
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
RF
Regions Financial Corporation
Banks - Regional
Market Cap$24.49B
5Y Perf.+149.4%
TFC vs RF — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | TFC | RF |
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $66.85B | $24.49B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $24.25B | $9.61B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $5.23B | $2.16B |
| Gross Margin | 47.0% | 74.6% |
| Operating Margin | -2.5% | 28.5% |
| Forward P/E | 11.2x | 10.8x |
| Total Debt | $62.27B | $4.88B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $39.77B | $10.91B |
TFC vs RF — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
TFC
RF
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Truist Financial Co… (TFC) | 100 | 138.1 | +38.1% |
| Regions Financial C… (RF) | 100 | 249.4 | +149.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TFC vs RF
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Bottom line: RF leads in 5 of 7 categories, making it the strongest pick for growth and revenue expansion and valuation and capital efficiency. Truist Financial Corporation is the stronger pick specifically for capital preservation and lower volatility and dividend income and shareholder returns. As sector peers, any of these can serve as alternatives in the same allocation.
TFC
Truist Financial Corporation
The Banking Pick
TFC is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 10 yrs, beta 1.07, yield 4.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.07, Low D/E 97.8%, current ratio 0.14x
- Beta 1.07, yield 4.1%, current ratio 0.14x
Best for: income & stability and sleep-well-at-night
RF
Regions Financial Corporation
The Banking Pick
RF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 2.5%, EPS growth 18.7%
- 284.7% 10Y total return vs TFC's 101.7%
- NIM 3.1% vs TFC's 2.7%
Best for: growth exposure and long-term compounding
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | RF | 2.5% NII/revenue growth vs TFC's -19.0% |
| Value | RF | Lower P/E (10.8x vs 11.2x) |
| Quality / Margins | RF | Efficiency ratio 0.5% vs TFC's 0.5% (lower = leaner) |
| Stability / Safety | TFC | Beta 1.07 vs RF's 1.10 |
| Dividends | TFC | 4.1% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs RF's 3.7% |
| Momentum (1Y) | RF | +41.3% vs TFC's +35.7% |
| Efficiency (ROA) | RF | Efficiency ratio 0.5% vs TFC's 0.5% |
TFC vs RF — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
FY 2016
FY 2023
TFC vs RF — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
BEST OVERALLRFLAGGINGTFC
TFCTruist Financial Corp…
1leads
RFRegions Financial Cor…
4leads
6 Total Categories
CATEGORYLEADERvs TFCMETRICS WON
Income & Cash FlowRevenue, margins, and cash flow strength
RF5/5
Valuation MetricsMultiples, price ratios, and targets
RF5/6
Profitability & EfficiencyROE, ROIC, leverage, and quality scores
RF9/9
Total Returns1Y, 3Y, 5Y total returns with dividends
RF4/6
Risk & VolatilityBeta, volatility, and downside exposure
TFC2/2
Analyst OutlookRatings, price targets, and dividends
Tied
—
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RF leads this category, winning 5 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TFC is the larger business by revenue, generating $24.3B annually — 2.5x RF's $9.6B. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 22.4% (RF) to 19.9% (TFC).
| Metric | TFCTruist Financial … | RFRegions Financial… |
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $24.3B | $9.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $7.2B | $2.8B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $5.2B | $2.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $3.9B | $2.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +47.0% | +74.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -2.5% | +28.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +19.9% | +22.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +8.9% | +22.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -9.1% | +3.6% |
RF leads this category, winning 5 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
RF leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.3x trailing earnings, RF trades at a 19% valuation discount to TFC's 15.1x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, RF's 6.6x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than TFC's 236.4x.
| Metric | TFCTruist Financial … | RFRegions Financial… |
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $66.8B | $24.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $89.3B | $18.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 15.12x | 12.32x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.20x | 10.79x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.71x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 236.37x | 6.58x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.76x | 2.55x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.06x | 1.30x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 30.89x | 11.23x |
RF leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
RF leads this category, winning 9 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
RF delivers a 11.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $11 in annual profit, vs $8 for TFC. RF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.26x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TFC's 0.98x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), RF scores 9/9 vs TFC's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | TFCTruist Financial … | RFRegions Financial… |
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +8.0% | +11.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.0% | +1.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -0.4% | +8.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.5% | +9.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 9 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.98x | 0.26x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $22.5B | -$6.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $39.8B | $10.9B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $62.3B | $4.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.62x | 1.32x |
RF leads this category, winning 9 of 9 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
RF 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 $9,987 for TFC. Over the past 12 months, RF leads with a +41.3% total return vs TFC's +35.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TFC at 25.7% vs RF's 23.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | TFCTruist Financial … | RFRegions Financial… |
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +3.2% | +3.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +35.7% | +41.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +98.4% | +90.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -0.1% | +43.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +101.7% | +284.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +25.7% | +23.9% |
RF leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TFC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TFC is the less volatile stock with a 1.07 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 | TFCTruist Financial … | RFRegions Financial… |
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.07x | 1.10x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $56.20 | $31.53 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $38.27 | $20.67 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +90.4% | +89.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.9 | 53.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 8.6M | 11.9M |
TFC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — TFC and RF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates TFC as "Buy" and RF as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 13.3% upside for TFC (target: $58) vs 9.1% for RF (target: $31). For income investors, TFC offers the higher dividend yield at 4.10% vs RF's 3.67%.
| Metric | TFCTruist Financial … | RFRegions Financial… |
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $57.56 | $30.78 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 54 | 52 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.1% | +3.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 10 | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $2.08 | $1.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.6% | +4.4% |
Evenly matched — TFC and RF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Key Takeaway
RF leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). TFC leads in 1 (Risk & Volatility). 1 tied.
Best OverallRegions Financial Corporati… (RF)Leads 4 of 6 categories
Loading custom metrics...
TFC vs RF: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TFC or RF a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the stronger pick with 2.
5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -19. 0% for Truist Financial Corporation (TFC). 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 Truist Financial Corporation (TFC) a "Buy" — based on 54 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 — TFC or RF?
On trailing P/E, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the cheapest at 12.
3x versus Truist Financial Corporation at 15. 1x. On forward P/E, Regions Financial Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 8x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TFC or RF?
Over the past 5 years, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) delivered a total return of +43.
7%, compared to -0. 1% for Truist Financial Corporation (TFC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RF returned +284. 7% versus TFC's +101. 7%. 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 — TFC or RF?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Truist Financial Corporation (TFC) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
07β versus Regions Financial Corporation's 1. 10β — meaning RF is approximately 3% more volatile than TFC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 26% versus 98% for Truist Financial Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TFC or RF?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is pulling ahead at 2.
5% versus -19. 0% for Truist Financial Corporation (TFC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Truist Financial Corporation grew EPS 408. 3% year-over-year, compared to 18. 7% for Regions Financial 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 — TFC or RF?
Regions Financial Corporation (RF) is the more profitable company, earning 22.
4% net margin versus 19. 9% for Truist Financial Corporation — 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 -2. 5% for TFC. 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 TFC or RF more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Regions Financial Corporation (RF) trades at 10.
8x forward P/E versus 11. 2x for Truist Financial Corporation — 0. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TFC: 13. 3% to $57. 56.
08Which pays a better dividend — TFC or RF?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Truist Financial Corporation (TFC) offers the highest yield at 4. 1%, versus 3. 7% for Regions Financial Corporation (RF).
09Is TFC or RF 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%, TFC: +101. 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 TFC and RF?
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.
Revenue Growth>
%
(TFC: -19.0% · RF: 2.5%)Net Margin>
%
(TFC: 19.9% · RF: 22.4%)P/E Ratio<
x
(TFC: 15.1x · RF: 12.3x)You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.