Banks - Regional
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
HBNC vs CZWI vs LKFN vs NBTB vs JPM vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Banks - Diversified
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
HBNC vs CZWI vs LKFN vs NBTB vs JPM vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Banks - Diversified | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $1.01B | $207M | $1.61B | $2.52B | $896.00B | $355.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $96M | $90M | $422M | $902M | $280.33B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-148M | $14M | $103M | $169M | $57.05B | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | -25.0% | 54.7% | 61.0% | 73.6% | 60.0% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | -203.2% | 7.0% | 29.8% | 24.3% | 25.9% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | 9.4x | 11.8x | 14.2x | 11.5x | 14.4x | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $404M | $52M | $184M | $327M | $942.38B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $67M | $119M | $57M | $185M | $343.34B | $10.27B |
HBNC vs CZWI vs LKFN vs NBTB vs JPM vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Horizon Bancorp, In… (HBNC) | 100 | 184.8 | +84.8% |
| Citizens Community … (CZWI) | 100 | 312.8 | +212.8% |
| Lakeland Financial … (LKFN) | 100 | 132.7 | +32.7% |
| NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) | 100 | 156.6 | +56.6% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 341.0 | +241.0% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 184.9 | +84.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HBNC vs CZWI vs LKFN vs NBTB vs JPM vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
HBNC is the clearest fit if your priority is bank quality.
- NIM 3.6% vs JPM's 2.2%
CZWI has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.50, Low D/E 27.6%, current ratio 3015.31x
- Beta 0.50 vs HBNC's 0.97, lower leverage
- +52.1% vs LKFN's +5.4%
LKFN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 14 yrs, beta 0.61, yield 3.2%
- 3.2% yield, 14-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5%
NBTB is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and defensive.
- Rev growth 10.4%, EPS growth 12.5%
- Beta 0.76, yield 3.0%, current ratio 1.60x
- 10.4% NII/revenue growth vs HBNC's -71.0%
JPM is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 465.8% 10Y total return vs CZWI's 149.0%
- PEG 0.81 vs LKFN's 3.58
- Lower P/E (14.4x vs 25.3x), PEG 0.81 vs 2.26
KO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- 27.8% margin vs HBNC's -154.3%
- 13.1% ROA vs HBNC's -2.2%, ROIC 15.8% vs -9.3%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.4% NII/revenue growth vs HBNC's -71.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.4x vs 25.3x), PEG 0.81 vs 2.26 | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs HBNC's -154.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.50 vs HBNC's 0.97, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield, 14-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +52.1% vs LKFN's +5.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs HBNC's -2.2%, ROIC 15.8% vs -9.3% |
HBNC vs CZWI vs LKFN vs NBTB vs JPM vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
HBNC vs CZWI vs LKFN vs NBTB vs JPM vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 6 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 1 of 6 categories
CZWI leads 1 • HBNC leads 0 • LKFN leads 0 • NBTB leads 0 • JPM leads 0 • 4 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — HBNC and CZWI and LKFN and NBTB and KO each lead in 1 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $280.3B annually — 3112.4x CZWI's $90M. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to HBNC's -154.3%.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $96M | $90M | $422M | $902M | $280.3B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$186M | $9M | $130M | $241M | $81.4B | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$148M | $14M | $103M | $169M | $57.0B | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $66M | $11M | $104M | $225M | $100.9B | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -25.0% | +54.7% | +61.0% | +73.6% | +60.0% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -2.0% | +7.0% | +29.8% | +24.3% | +25.9% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -154.3% | +16.0% | +24.5% | +18.8% | +20.4% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +68.5% | +12.4% | +24.6% | +24.9% | +36.0% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -5.6% | +63.0% | +23.4% | +39.5% | +16.0% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — HBNC and CZWI and JPM each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.5x trailing earnings, NBTB trades at a 47% valuation discount to KO's 27.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.90x vs LKFN's 3.88x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.0B | $207M | $1.6B | $2.5B | $896.0B | $355.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.3B | $140M | $1.7B | $2.7B | $1.50T | $390.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -6.27x | 14.70x | 15.42x | 14.47x | 16.00x | 27.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 9.40x | 11.79x | 14.24x | 11.54x | 14.40x | 25.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 2.90x | 3.88x | 2.06x | 0.90x | 2.43x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 15.69x | 13.34x | 11.03x | 18.36x | 26.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 9.81x | 2.29x | 3.82x | 2.90x | 3.20x | 7.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.47x | 1.11x | 2.09x | 1.29x | 2.47x | 10.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 24.29x | 19.90x | 15.53x | 11.49x | 8.88x | 67.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-15 for HBNC. NBTB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.17x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NBTB scores 7/9 vs HBNC's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -14.7% | +7.8% | +14.2% | +9.5% | +15.9% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -2.2% | +0.8% | +1.5% | +1.1% | +1.3% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -9.3% | +2.0% | +11.6% | +7.9% | +4.5% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -4.7% | +0.6% | +15.8% | +2.4% | +8.9% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.59x | 0.28x | 0.24x | 0.17x | 2.60x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $338M | -$67M | $127M | $142M | $599.0B | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $67M | $119M | $57M | $185M | $343.3B | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $404M | $52M | $184M | $327M | $942.4B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -1.62x | 0.16x | 0.82x | 1.05x | 0.74x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CZWI leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in JPM five years ago would be worth $21,820 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $11,954 for LKFN. Over the past 12 months, CZWI leads with a +52.1% total return vs LKFN's +5.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CZWI at 36.4% vs LKFN's 7.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +21.3% | +24.3% | +11.4% | +17.6% | -0.5% | +20.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +34.7% | +52.1% | +5.4% | +18.3% | +21.8% | +17.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +107.4% | +153.7% | +24.5% | +48.5% | +138.2% | +47.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +27.7% | +69.0% | +19.5% | +44.4% | +118.2% | +65.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +128.4% | +149.0% | +139.3% | +108.5% | +465.8% | +121.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +27.5% | +36.4% | +7.6% | +14.1% | +33.6% | +13.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — HBNC and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than HBNC's 0.97 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. HBNC currently trades 100.0% from its 52-week high vs LKFN's 89.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.97x | 0.50x | 0.61x | 0.76x | 0.94x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $19.75 | $22.62 | $69.40 | $48.27 | $337.25 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $14.34 | $12.83 | $54.36 | $39.20 | $262.71 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +100.0% | +94.9% | +89.1% | +99.8% | +95.1% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 67.3 | 51.2 | 54.7 | 63.1 | 59.1 | 60.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 306K | 41K | 154K | 266K | 7.0M | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — LKFN and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: HBNC as "Buy", CZWI as "Buy", LKFN as "Hold", NBTB as "Hold", JPM as "Buy", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 6.7% upside for LKFN (target: $66) vs -4.5% for NBTB (target: $46). For income investors, LKFN offers the higher dividend yield at 3.23% vs CZWI's 1.73%.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $20.50 | — | $66.00 | $46.00 | $339.75 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 61 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.1% | +1.7% | +3.2% | +3.0% | +1.9% | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 6 | 14 | 13 | 15 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.42 | $0.37 | $2.00 | $1.43 | $5.95 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +3.0% | +1.3% | +0.4% | +3.9% | +0.2% |
KO leads in 1 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency). CZWI leads in 1 (Total Returns). 4 tied.
HBNC vs CZWI vs LKFN vs NBTB vs JPM vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HBNC or CZWI or LKFN or NBTB or JPM or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, NBT Bancorp Inc.
(NBTB) is the stronger pick with 10. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -71. 0% for Horizon Bancorp, Inc. (HBNC). NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) offers the better valuation at 14. 5x trailing P/E (11. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Horizon Bancorp, Inc. (HBNC) a "Buy" — based on 9 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 — HBNC or CZWI or LKFN or NBTB or JPM or KO?
On trailing P/E, NBT Bancorp Inc.
(NBTB) is the cheapest at 14. 5x versus The Coca-Cola Company at 27. 2x. On forward P/E, Horizon Bancorp, Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 4x — 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: JPMorgan Chase & Co. wins at 0. 81x versus Lakeland Financial Corporation's 3. 58x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — HBNC or CZWI or LKFN or NBTB or JPM or KO?
Over the past 5 years, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) delivered a total return of +118. 2%, compared to +19. 5% for Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: JPM returned +465. 8% versus NBTB's +108. 5%. 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 — HBNC or CZWI or LKFN or NBTB or JPM or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Horizon Bancorp, Inc. 's 0. 97β — meaning HBNC is approximately -585% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HBNC or CZWI or LKFN or NBTB or JPM or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), NBT Bancorp Inc.
(NBTB) is pulling ahead at 10. 4% versus -71. 0% for Horizon Bancorp, Inc. (HBNC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Coca-Cola Company grew EPS 23. 6% year-over-year, compared to -493. 8% for Horizon Bancorp, 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 — HBNC or CZWI or LKFN or NBTB or JPM or KO?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -145. 9% for Horizon Bancorp, Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LKFN leads at 29. 8% versus -193. 4% for HBNC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NBTB leads at 72. 1%, 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 HBNC or CZWI or LKFN or NBTB or JPM or KO 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, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 81x versus Lakeland Financial Corporation's 3. 58x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Horizon Bancorp, Inc. (HBNC) trades at 9. 4x forward P/E versus 25. 3x for The Coca-Cola Company — 15. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LKFN: 6. 7% to $66. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — HBNC or CZWI or LKFN or NBTB or JPM or KO?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN) offers the highest yield at 3. 2%, versus 1. 7% for Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. (CZWI).
09Is HBNC or CZWI or LKFN or NBTB or JPM or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, HBNC: +128. 4%), 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 HBNC and CZWI and LKFN and NBTB and JPM and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (HBNC (Financial Services) and CZWI (Financial Services) and LKFN (Financial Services) and NBTB (Financial Services) and JPM (Financial Services) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: HBNC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CZWI is a small-cap deep-value stock; LKFN is a small-cap deep-value stock; NBTB is a small-cap deep-value stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock. 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.