BANF vs WSFS Stock Comparison
BANF currently leads WSFS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 59. The clearest difference is momentum, while WSFS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BANF and WSFS?
BANF leads the current stock comparison as BancFirst Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BancFirst Corporation vs WSFS Financial Corporation
BANF leads
BANF leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from WSFS.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support BANF, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
BancFirst Corporation
WSFS Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BANF over WSFS, 60 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. BANF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while WSFS holds the stronger value profile. BANF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BANF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. BANF lead: Reversed — WSFS led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BANF now leads by 1.
Compare BancFirst Corporation and WSFS Financial Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare BANF and WSFS against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum72 vs 56BANF +16
- Value38 vs 49WSFS +11
- Quality73 vs 70Even
- Risk Resilience61 vs 64Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor BANF. BANF’s edge is concentrated in momentum; WSFS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +24
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: BANF moved ahead of WSFS in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BANF and WSFS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BANF (BancFirst Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
WSFS (WSFS Financial Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
BANFBANF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WSFSWSFS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WSFSWSFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
BANFBANF on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
BANFBANF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
BANFBANF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BANF | WSFS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.9% | +6% | BANF has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +13.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BANF | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.56% | 6.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.320 | $0.480 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.900 | $0.660 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #161 | #198 |
BANF grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.56% a year against WSFS's 6.58%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BANF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 60 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | BANFon balance | revenue growth -24.3% vs 3.9%; TTM ROE 13.4% vs 11.7%; gross margin 90.5% vs 78.4%; operating margin 41.1% vs 31.3% — BANF takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WSFS | Value 38 vs 49 |
| Technicals | WSFS | Price vs 50-day -0.1% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day -1.3% vs 7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | BANF | Target upside 13.9% vs 6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BANF and WSFS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on BANF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BANF lead: Reversed — WSFS led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BANF now leads by 1.
- Today
- BANF +1
- 60 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- WSFS +3
- 53 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- WSFS +5
- 49 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- WSFS +3
- 58 vs 61
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when BANF moved ahead of WSFS.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BANF
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.58%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only WSFS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.88%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
BANF leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.39%, AIQ +5 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.65%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1WSFS closes the Momentum gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to BANF's edge.
- 2WSFS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3BANF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
BANF leads on balance| Metric | BANF | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -24.3% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.3% | -0.6% |
| Gross margin | 90.5% | 78.4% |
| Operating margin | 41.1% | 31.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.4% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.11 |
Performance
WSFS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BANF | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.2% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.8% | 0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.5% | -2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.5% | 11% |
| Year to date | 3.9% | 40% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4% | 53.3% |
Technicals
WSFS has the stronger structure| Metric | BANF | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.9 | 58.3 |
| ADX (14) | 20 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.1% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.3% | 7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.7% | 17.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BANF | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.51 | 0.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.15 | 1.83 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.21 | 2.95 |
| Max drawdown | -14.2% | -11.7% |
| Current drawdown | -8.5% | -6% |
| Annualized volatility | 24% | 21.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BANF or WSFS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BANF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against WSFS's 59. The edge comes from momentum. WSFS is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is BANF or WSFS the better buy right now?
BANF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BANF over WSFS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BANF leads Momentum by 16 points; WSFS leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BANF or WSFS?
Analyst price targets imply +13.9% upside for BANF and +6% for WSFS, so the Street currently favors BANF. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BANF or WSFS?
WSFS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WSFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, BANF or WSFS?
WSFS on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, BANF or WSFS?
BANF on the Momentum factor, by 16 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, BANF or WSFS?
BANF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BANF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BANF more profitable than WSFS?
BANF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 90.5% vs 78.4%; operating margin 41.1% vs 31.3%; ttm roe 13.4% vs 11.7%.
Is BANF's lead over WSFS getting stronger or weaker?
BANF lead: Reversed — WSFS led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BANF now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when BANF moved ahead of WSFS.
What would change the BANF vs WSFS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WSFS closes the Momentum gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to BANF's edge; WSFS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; BANF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about BANF and WSFS?
BANF: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WSFS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on BANF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WSFS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BANF and WSFS with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.