Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
3 / 10Stock Comparison
UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $9.98B | $10.08B | $7.66B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $4.44B | $4.23B | $2.14B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $883M | $824M | $566M |
| Gross Margin | 54.4% | 62.2% | 80.0% |
| Operating Margin | 20.3% | 26.4% | 34.2% |
| Forward P/E | 10.3x | 11.6x | 12.9x |
| Total Debt | $3.80B | $4.48B | $3.00B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $953M | $468M | $803M |
UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| UMB Financial Corpo… (UMBF) | 100 | 255.6 | +155.6% |
| Wintrust Financial … (WTFC) | 100 | 355.2 | +255.2% |
| Commerce Bancshares… (CBSH) | 100 | 104.4 | +4.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
UMBF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for bank quality.
- NIM 3.5% vs WTFC's 3.1%
- 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs CBSH's 2.2%
- Lower P/E (10.3x vs 12.9x), PEG 1.14 vs 1.14
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%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.16, Low D/E 61.7%, current ratio 0.14x
CBSH is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.70, yield 2.1%
- Beta 0.70, yield 2.1%
- Beta 0.70 vs UMBF's 1.19
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs CBSH's 2.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.3x vs 12.9x), PEG 1.14 vs 1.14 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CBSH's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.70 vs UMBF's 1.19 | |
| Dividends | 1.4% yield, 17-year raise streak, vs CBSH's 2.1%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +32.4% vs CBSH's -15.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CBSH's 0.5% |
UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CBSH leads in 2 of 6 categories
UMBF leads 1 • WTFC leads 1 • 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)
UMBF is the larger business by revenue, generating $4.4B annually — 2.1x CBSH's $2.1B. CBSH is the more profitable business, keeping 26.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to UMBF's 15.8%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $4.4B | $4.2B | $2.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.1B | $1.2B | $796M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $883M | $824M | $566M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $985M | $915M | $570M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +54.4% | +62.2% | +80.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +20.3% | +26.4% | +34.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +15.8% | +19.5% | +26.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +22.0% | +21.5% | +27.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +176.9% | +25.5% | +1.0% |
Valuation Metrics
UMBF leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.8x trailing earnings, CBSH trades at a 11% valuation discount to UMBF's 14.4x 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 | $10.0B | $10.1B | $7.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $12.8B | $14.1B | $9.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 14.35x | 13.02x | 12.78x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 10.30x | 11.56x | 12.92x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.59x | 0.66x | 1.13x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.10x | 11.67x | 12.80x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.25x | 2.38x | 3.58x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.30x | 1.40x | 1.90x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 10.20x | 11.07x | 12.93x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CBSH leads this category, winning 6 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 WTFC. UMBF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.49x 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 CBSH's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.7% | +11.3% | +15.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.5% | +7.5% | +8.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +14.4% | +6.4% | +2.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.49x | 0.62x | 0.79x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.8B | $4.0B | $2.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $953M | $468M | $803M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3.8B | $4.5B | $3.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.63x | 0.74x | 1.97x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WTFC leads this category, winning 5 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, WTFC leads with a +32.4% total return vs CBSH's -15.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WTFC at 33.6% vs CBSH's 5.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +12.9% | +5.8% | +0.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +31.4% | +32.4% | -15.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +134.7% | +138.3% | +18.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.6% | +101.8% | -13.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +168.6% | +226.3% | +104.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +32.9% | +33.6% | +5.7% |
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 UMBF's 1.19 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 | 1.19x | 1.16x | 0.70x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $136.11 | $162.96 | $66.35 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $98.16 | $113.39 | $46.99 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +96.3% | +92.3% | +78.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 72.4 | 56.1 | 56.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 606K | 438K | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — UMBF and CBSH each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: UMBF as "Buy", WTFC as "Buy", CBSH as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 16.0% upside for WTFC (target: $175) vs 12.2% for CBSH (target: $59). For income investors, CBSH offers the higher dividend yield at 2.07% vs UMBF's 1.35%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $150.40 | $174.57 | $58.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 18 | 22 | 15 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.4% | — | +2.1% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 17 | 13 | 12 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.77 | — | $1.08 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.3% | 0.0% | +2.7% |
CBSH leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). UMBF leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
UMBF vs WTFC vs CBSH: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is UMBF or WTFC or CBSH 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 2. 2% for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (CBSH). Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (CBSH) offers the better valuation at 12. 8x trailing P/E (12. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) a "Buy" — based on 18 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 — UMBF or WTFC or CBSH?
On trailing P/E, Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
(CBSH) is the cheapest at 12. 8x versus UMB Financial Corporation at 14. 4x. On forward P/E, UMB Financial Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 3x — 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. 58x versus Commerce Bancshares, Inc. 's 1. 14x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — UMBF or WTFC or CBSH?
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 +226. 3% versus CBSH's +104. 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 — UMBF or WTFC or CBSH?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
(CBSH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 70β versus UMB Financial Corporation's 1. 19β — meaning UMBF is approximately 69% more volatile than CBSH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 49% versus 79% for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — UMBF or WTFC or CBSH?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) is pulling ahead at 68.
5% versus 2. 2% for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (CBSH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Wintrust Financial Corporation grew EPS 12. 1% year-over-year, compared to 1. 6% for UMB 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 — UMBF or WTFC or CBSH?
Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
(CBSH) is the more profitable company, earning 26. 5% net margin versus 15. 8% for UMB Financial Corporation — 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 20. 3% for UMBF. 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 UMBF or WTFC or CBSH 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. 58x versus Commerce Bancshares, Inc. 's 1. 14x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF) trades at 10. 3x forward P/E versus 12. 9x for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. — 2. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for WTFC: 16. 0% to $174. 57.
08Which pays a better dividend — UMBF or WTFC or CBSH?
In this comparison, 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 UMBF or WTFC or CBSH 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. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CBSH: +104. 6%, WTFC: +226. 3%), 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 UMBF and WTFC and CBSH?
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: UMBF is a small-cap high-growth stock; WTFC is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CBSH is a small-cap deep-value stock. UMBF, CBSH 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.