Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
WBS vs UMBF vs WTFC vs FHN vs HBAN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
WBS vs UMBF vs WTFC vs FHN vs HBAN — 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 | $11.77B | $9.99B | $10.13B | $11.87B | $25.63B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $4.42B | $4.44B | $4.23B | $4.99B | $12.48B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.02B | $883M | $824M | $982M | $2.21B |
| Gross Margin | 60.8% | 54.4% | 62.2% | 67.3% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | 28.5% | 20.3% | 26.4% | 25.7% | 21.5% |
| Forward P/E | 11.0x | 10.3x | 11.6x | 11.4x | 11.1x |
| Total Debt | $4.32B | $3.80B | $4.48B | $4.57B | $18.48B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $2.45B | $953M | $468M | $961M | $1.78B |
WBS vs UMBF vs WTFC vs FHN vs HBAN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Webster Financial C… (WBS) | 100 | 256.8 | +156.8% |
| UMB Financial Corpo… (UMBF) | 100 | 255.8 | +155.8% |
| Wintrust Financial … (WTFC) | 100 | 356.9 | +256.9% |
| First Horizon Corpo… (FHN) | 100 | 261.7 | +161.7% |
| Huntington Bancshar… (HBAN) | 100 | 182.1 | +82.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: WBS vs UMBF vs WTFC vs FHN vs HBAN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
WBS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.54 vs UMBF's 1.14
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs FHN's 0.4% (lower = leaner)
- +52.5% vs HBAN's +12.4%
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs FHN's 0.4%
UMBF is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and bank quality is your priority.
- Rev growth 68.5%, EPS growth 1.6%
- NIM 3.5% vs HBAN's 2.7%
- 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs FHN's 1.0%
- Lower P/E (10.3x vs 11.4x)
WTFC is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 224.8% 10Y total return vs WBS's 148.3%
FHN is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.10, Low D/E 50.0%, current ratio 0.96x
HBAN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 1.09, yield 3.7%
- Beta 1.09, yield 3.7%, current ratio 0.19x
- Beta 1.09 vs UMBF's 1.19
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 68.5% NII/revenue growth vs FHN's 1.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.3x vs 11.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs FHN's 0.4% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.09 vs UMBF's 1.19 | |
| Dividends | 1.4% yield, 17-year raise streak, vs HBAN's 3.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +52.5% vs HBAN's +12.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs FHN's 0.4% |
WBS vs UMBF vs WTFC vs FHN vs HBAN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
WBS vs UMBF vs WTFC vs FHN vs HBAN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
WBS leads in 1 of 6 categories
HBAN leads 1 • UMBF leads 1 • WTFC leads 1 • FHN leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WBS leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HBAN is the larger business by revenue, generating $12.5B annually — 3.0x WTFC's $4.2B. WBS is the more profitable business, keeping 22.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to UMBF's 15.8%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $4.4B | $4.4B | $4.2B | $5.0B | $12.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.3B | $1.1B | $1.2B | $1.3B | $3.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.0B | $883M | $824M | $982M | $2.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1.2B | $985M | $915M | $628M | $2.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +60.8% | +54.4% | +62.2% | +67.3% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +28.5% | +20.3% | +26.4% | +25.7% | +21.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +22.7% | +15.8% | +19.5% | +19.7% | +17.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +22.8% | +22.0% | +21.5% | +12.6% | +18.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +15.4% | +176.9% | +25.5% | +79.3% | -11.8% |
Valuation Metrics
HBAN leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 11.6x trailing earnings, HBAN trades at a 19% valuation discount to UMBF's 14.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), WBS offers better value at 0.61x vs UMBF's 1.59x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $11.8B | $10.0B | $10.1B | $11.9B | $25.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $13.6B | $12.8B | $14.1B | $15.5B | $42.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 12.30x | 14.37x | 13.08x | 13.02x | 11.65x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.01x | 10.31x | 11.62x | 11.41x | 11.10x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.61x | 1.59x | 0.66x | — | 0.77x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.83x | 12.11x | 11.71x | 11.58x | 15.75x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.66x | 2.25x | 2.39x | 2.38x | 2.05x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.23x | 1.30x | 1.41x | 1.33x | 1.00x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 11.67x | 10.21x | 11.12x | 18.90x | 11.25x |
Profitability & Efficiency
UMBF leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
UMBF delivers a 11.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $12 in annual profit, vs $10 for HBAN. WBS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.45x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HBAN's 0.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), UMBF scores 7/9 vs HBAN's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +10.8% | +11.7% | +11.3% | +10.7% | +10.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.2% | +7.5% | +7.5% | +7.0% | +5.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +10.7% | +14.4% | +6.4% | +10.2% | +4.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.45x | 0.49x | 0.62x | 0.50x | 0.76x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.9B | $2.8B | $4.0B | $3.6B | $16.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $2.4B | $953M | $468M | $961M | $1.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4.3B | $3.8B | $4.5B | $4.6B | $18.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.77x | 0.63x | 0.74x | 0.82x | 0.62x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WTFC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WTFC five years ago would be worth $20,287 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $12,203 for HBAN. Over the past 12 months, WBS leads with a +52.5% total return vs HBAN's +12.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WTFC at 35.3% vs HBAN's 22.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +14.5% | +13.0% | +6.4% | +2.1% | -6.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +52.5% | +31.1% | +34.0% | +34.9% | +12.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +132.5% | +143.7% | +147.6% | +145.7% | +85.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +43.7% | +41.5% | +102.9% | +43.6% | +22.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +148.3% | +165.1% | +224.8% | +119.6% | +121.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +32.5% | +34.6% | +35.3% | +34.9% | +22.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — WBS and HBAN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
HBAN is the less volatile stock with a 1.09 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. WBS currently trades 98.2% from its 52-week high vs HBAN's 83.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.12x | 1.19x | 1.16x | 1.10x | 1.09x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $74.00 | $136.11 | $162.96 | $26.56 | $19.46 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $48.37 | $98.16 | $113.75 | $18.58 | $14.87 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +98.2% | +96.4% | +92.8% | +92.1% | +83.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 62.3 | 78.4 | 63.5 | 62.0 | 53.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 3.6M | 613K | 438K | 5.0M | 24.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — UMBF and HBAN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: WBS as "Hold", UMBF as "Buy", WTFC as "Buy", FHN as "Hold", HBAN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 25.9% upside for HBAN (target: $20) vs 2.3% for WBS (target: $74). For income investors, HBAN offers the higher dividend yield at 3.73% vs UMBF's 1.35%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $74.33 | $150.40 | $174.57 | $28.00 | $20.38 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 31 | 18 | 22 | 35 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.3% | +1.4% | — | +2.6% | +3.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 17 | 13 | 3 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.66 | $1.77 | — | $0.63 | $0.60 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +5.2% | +1.3% | 0.0% | +7.7% | 0.0% |
WBS leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). HBAN leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
WBS vs UMBF vs WTFC vs FHN vs HBAN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is WBS or UMBF or WTFC or FHN or HBAN 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). Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) offers the better valuation at 11. 6x trailing P/E (11. 1x 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 — WBS or UMBF or WTFC or FHN or HBAN?
On trailing P/E, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) is the cheapest at 11.
6x 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: Webster Financial Corporation wins at 0. 54x versus UMB Financial Corporation's 1. 14x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — WBS or UMBF or WTFC or FHN or HBAN?
Over the past 5 years, Wintrust Financial Corporation (WTFC) delivered a total return of +102.
9%, compared to +22. 0% for Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WTFC returned +224. 8% versus FHN's +119. 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 — WBS or UMBF or WTFC or FHN or HBAN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
09β versus UMB Financial Corporation's 1. 19β — meaning UMBF is approximately 10% more volatile than HBAN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Webster Financial Corporation (WBS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 45% versus 76% for Huntington Bancshares Incorporated — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — WBS or UMBF or WTFC or FHN or HBAN?
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 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 — WBS or UMBF or WTFC or FHN or HBAN?
Webster Financial Corporation (WBS) is the more profitable company, earning 22.
7% net margin versus 15. 8% for UMB Financial Corporation — meaning it keeps 22. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WBS leads at 28. 5% versus 20. 3% for UMBF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FHN leads at 67. 3%, 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 WBS or UMBF or WTFC or FHN or HBAN 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, Webster Financial Corporation (WBS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 54x versus UMB Financial Corporation'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 11. 6x for Wintrust Financial Corporation — 1. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for HBAN: 25. 9% to $20. 38.
08Which pays a better dividend — WBS or UMBF or WTFC or FHN or HBAN?
In this comparison, HBAN (3.
7% yield), FHN (2. 6% yield), WBS (2. 3% yield), UMBF (1. 4% yield) pay a dividend. WTFC does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is WBS or UMBF or WTFC or FHN or HBAN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (HBAN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.
09), 3. 7% yield, +121. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (HBAN: +121. 5%, WTFC: +224. 8%), 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 WBS and UMBF and WTFC and FHN and HBAN?
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: WBS is a mid-cap deep-value stock; UMBF is a small-cap high-growth stock; WTFC is a mid-cap deep-value stock; FHN is a mid-cap deep-value stock; HBAN is a mid-cap deep-value stock. WBS, UMBF, FHN, HBAN 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.