Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
WBS vs WTFC vs FHN vs PNFP vs IBCP
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
WBS vs WTFC vs FHN vs PNFP vs IBCP — 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 | $10.13B | $11.87B | $7.58B | $699M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $4.42B | $4.23B | $4.99B | $2.85B | $315M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.02B | $824M | $982M | $624M | $69M |
| Gross Margin | 60.8% | 62.2% | 67.3% | 49.1% | 69.6% |
| Operating Margin | 28.5% | 26.4% | 25.7% | 20.4% | 25.8% |
| Forward P/E | 11.0x | 11.6x | 11.4x | 9.6x | 9.6x |
| Total Debt | $4.32B | $4.48B | $4.57B | $2.53B | $117M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $2.45B | $468M | $961M | $3.34B | $52M |
WBS vs WTFC vs FHN vs PNFP vs IBCP — 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% |
| Wintrust Financial … (WTFC) | 100 | 356.9 | +256.9% |
| First Horizon Corpo… (FHN) | 100 | 261.7 | +161.7% |
| Pinnacle Financial … (PNFP) | 100 | 247.6 | +147.6% |
| Independent Bank Co… (IBCP) | 100 | 245.7 | +145.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: WBS vs WTFC vs FHN vs PNFP vs IBCP
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
WBS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if valuation efficiency is your priority.
- PEG 0.54 vs PNFP's 3.59
- Lower P/E (11.0x vs 11.4x)
- +52.5% vs PNFP's -4.3%
WTFC is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 6.7%, EPS growth 12.1%
- 224.8% 10Y total return vs IBCP's 184.6%
Among these 5 stocks, FHN doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
PNFP carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth and quality.
- 15.3% NII/revenue growth vs IBCP's -0.3%
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs IBCP's 0.4% (lower = leaner)
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs IBCP's 0.4%
IBCP ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 0.83, yield 3.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.83, Low D/E 23.2%, current ratio 370.62x
- Beta 0.83, yield 3.0%, current ratio 370.62x
- NIM 3.3% vs PNFP's 2.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 15.3% NII/revenue growth vs IBCP's -0.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.0x vs 11.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs IBCP's 0.4% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.83 vs WTFC's 1.16, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.0% yield, 11-year raise streak, vs PNFP's 0.9%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +52.5% vs PNFP's -4.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs IBCP's 0.4% |
WBS vs WTFC vs FHN vs PNFP vs IBCP — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
WBS vs WTFC vs FHN vs PNFP vs IBCP — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
IBCP leads in 2 of 6 categories
WBS leads 1 • WTFC leads 1 • FHN leads 0 • PNFP leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WBS leads this category, winning 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FHN is the larger business by revenue, generating $5.0B annually — 15.8x IBCP's $315M. WBS is the more profitable business, keeping 22.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to PNFP's 16.6%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $4.4B | $4.2B | $5.0B | $2.9B | $315M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.3B | $1.2B | $1.3B | $841M | $89M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.0B | $824M | $982M | $624M | $69M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1.2B | $915M | $628M | $1.1B | $70M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +60.8% | +62.2% | +67.3% | +49.1% | +69.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +28.5% | +26.4% | +25.7% | +20.4% | +25.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +22.7% | +19.5% | +19.7% | +16.6% | +21.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +22.8% | +21.5% | +12.6% | +28.3% | +22.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +15.4% | +25.5% | +79.3% | +17.7% | +2.3% |
Valuation Metrics
IBCP leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.4x trailing earnings, IBCP trades at a 37% valuation discount to PNFP's 16.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), WBS offers better value at 0.61x vs PNFP's 6.16x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $11.8B | $10.1B | $11.9B | $7.6B | $699M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $13.6B | $14.1B | $15.5B | $6.8B | $764M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 12.30x | 13.08x | 13.02x | 16.55x | 10.38x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.01x | 11.62x | 11.41x | 9.65x | 9.56x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.61x | 0.66x | — | 6.16x | 1.97x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.83x | 11.71x | 11.58x | 9.96x | 9.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.66x | 2.39x | 2.38x | 2.66x | 2.22x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.23x | 1.41x | 1.33x | 1.18x | 1.41x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 11.67x | 11.12x | 18.90x | 9.39x | 9.96x |
Profitability & Efficiency
IBCP leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
IBCP delivers a 14.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $14 in annual profit, vs $9 for PNFP. IBCP carries lower financial leverage with a 0.23x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WTFC's 0.62x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IBCP scores 8/9 vs PNFP's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +10.8% | +11.3% | +10.7% | +9.4% | +14.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.2% | +1.1% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.2% | +7.5% | +7.0% | +4.9% | +10.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +10.7% | +6.4% | +10.2% | +6.2% | +2.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.45x | 0.62x | 0.50x | 0.39x | 0.23x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.9B | $4.0B | $3.6B | -$812M | $65M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $2.4B | $468M | $961M | $3.3B | $52M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4.3B | $4.5B | $4.6B | $2.5B | $117M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.77x | 0.74x | 0.82x | 0.60x | 0.91x |
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 $11,634 for PNFP. Over the past 12 months, WBS leads with a +52.5% total return vs PNFP's -4.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WTFC at 35.3% vs PNFP's 28.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +14.5% | +6.4% | +2.1% | +4.8% | +7.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +52.5% | +34.0% | +34.9% | -4.3% | +12.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +132.5% | +147.6% | +145.7% | +112.0% | +130.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +43.7% | +102.9% | +43.6% | +16.3% | +63.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +148.3% | +224.8% | +119.6% | +125.4% | +184.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +32.5% | +35.3% | +34.9% | +28.5% | +32.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — WBS and IBCP each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
IBCP is the less volatile stock with a 0.83 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than WTFC's 1.16 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 PNFP's 81.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.12x | 1.16x | 1.10x | 1.11x | 0.83x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $74.00 | $162.96 | $26.56 | $120.46 | $37.39 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $48.37 | $113.75 | $18.58 | $81.07 | $29.63 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +98.2% | +92.8% | +92.1% | +81.9% | +90.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 62.3 | 63.5 | 62.0 | 63.0 | 50.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 3.6M | 438K | 5.0M | 1.4M | 176K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — WTFC and IBCP each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: WBS as "Hold", WTFC as "Buy", FHN as "Hold", PNFP as "Buy", IBCP as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 19.2% upside for PNFP (target: $118) vs 2.3% for WBS (target: $74). For income investors, IBCP offers the higher dividend yield at 3.05% vs PNFP's 0.91%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $74.33 | $174.57 | $28.00 | $117.63 | $38.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 31 | 22 | 35 | 21 | 7 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.3% | — | +2.6% | +0.9% | +3.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.66 | — | $0.63 | $0.89 | $1.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +5.2% | 0.0% | +7.7% | +0.2% | +1.8% |
IBCP leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). WBS leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
WBS vs WTFC vs FHN vs PNFP vs IBCP: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is WBS or WTFC or FHN or PNFP or IBCP a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.
(PNFP) is the stronger pick with 15. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 3% for Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP). Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) offers the better valuation at 10. 4x trailing P/E (9. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Wintrust Financial Corporation (WTFC) a "Buy" — based on 22 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 WTFC or FHN or PNFP or IBCP?
On trailing P/E, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the cheapest at 10.
4x versus Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. at 16. 6x. On forward P/E, Independent Bank Corporation is actually cheaper at 9. 6x. 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 Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. 's 3. 59x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — WBS or WTFC or FHN or PNFP or IBCP?
Over the past 5 years, Wintrust Financial Corporation (WTFC) delivered a total return of +102.
9%, compared to +16. 3% for Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. (PNFP). 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 WTFC or FHN or PNFP or IBCP?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
83β versus Wintrust Financial Corporation's 1. 16β — meaning WTFC is approximately 41% more volatile than IBCP relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 23% versus 62% for Wintrust Financial Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — WBS or WTFC or FHN or PNFP or IBCP?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.
(PNFP) is pulling ahead at 15. 3% versus -0. 3% for Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: First Horizon Corporation grew EPS 38. 2% year-over-year, compared to -16. 5% for Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.. 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 WTFC or FHN or PNFP or IBCP?
Webster Financial Corporation (WBS) is the more profitable company, earning 22.
7% net margin versus 16. 6% for Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. — 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. 4% for PNFP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IBCP leads at 69. 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 WBS or WTFC or FHN or PNFP or IBCP 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 Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. 's 3. 59x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) trades at 9. 6x forward P/E versus 11. 6x for Wintrust Financial Corporation — 2. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PNFP: 19. 2% to $117. 63.
08Which pays a better dividend — WBS or WTFC or FHN or PNFP or IBCP?
In this comparison, IBCP (3.
0% yield), FHN (2. 6% yield), WBS (2. 3% yield), PNFP (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. WTFC does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is WBS or WTFC or FHN or PNFP or IBCP better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Independent Bank Corporation (IBCP) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
83), 3. 0% yield, +184. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (IBCP: +184. 6%, 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 WTFC and FHN and PNFP and IBCP?
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; WTFC is a mid-cap deep-value stock; FHN is a mid-cap deep-value stock; PNFP is a small-cap high-growth stock; IBCP is a small-cap deep-value stock. WBS, FHN, PNFP, IBCP 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.