CFG vs FITB Stock Comparison
Compare CFG vs FITB on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between CFG and FITB?
CFG and FITB are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. vs Fifth Third Bancorp
CFG and FITB are effectively level
CFG and FITB are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
Fifth Third Bancorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CFG and FITB as of Oct 22, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Citizens Financial Group, Inc. and Fifth Third Bancorp 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 CFG and FITB 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.
- Momentum45 vs 61FITB +16
- Value52 vs 38CFG +14
- Quality58 vs 59Even
- Risk Resilience63 vs 63Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +23
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
CFG's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CFG and FITB both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
FITBFITB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CFGCFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
FITBFITB on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
CFGCFG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CFGCFG 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 | CFG | FITB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.8% | +19.1% | CFG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.1% | +14.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CFG | FITB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.97% | 7.35% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.560 | $1.080 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.720 | $1.540 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #330 | #171 |
FITB grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.35% a year against CFG's 1.97%. 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 54 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | CFGon balance | revenue growth 2.3% vs 14.6%; EPS growth 8.4% vs 4.2%; TTM ROE 8.7% vs 8.4%; gross margin 73.3% vs 68.5%; operating margin 24.8% vs 20.1% — CFG takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CFG | Value 52 vs 38 |
| Technicals | FITB | Price vs 50-day -4.2% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day -1.8% vs 1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 63 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | CFG | Target upside 22.8% vs 19.1% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CFG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 54 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- CFG +5
- 52 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- CFG +5
- 50 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- CFG +7
- 61 vs 54
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FITB
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.03%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.76%, AIQ +6 points).
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
CFG leads on balance| Metric | CFG | FITB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.3% | 14.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 4.2% |
| Gross margin | 73.3% | 68.5% |
| Operating margin | 24.8% | 20.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.7% | 8.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.71 | 0.65 |
Performance
FITB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CFG | FITB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 4.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.9% | -0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.3% | -9.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.7% | 2.6% |
| Year to date | 9.9% | 12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 32.7% | 29.9% |
Technicals
FITB has the stronger structure| Metric | CFG | FITB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.8 | 64 |
| ADX (14) | 32.1 | 32.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.2% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.8% | 1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.9% | 21% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CFG | FITB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.9 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.96 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.53 | 1.39 |
| Max drawdown | -18.3% | -21.2% |
| Current drawdown | -14.1% | -11.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.4% | 25.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, CFG or FITB?
Analyst price targets imply +22.8% upside for CFG and +19.1% for FITB, so the Street currently favors CFG. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CFG or FITB?
CFG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CFG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, CFG or FITB?
FITB 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, CFG or FITB?
FITB 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, CFG or FITB?
CFG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CFG 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 CFG more profitable than FITB?
CFG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 73.3% vs 68.5%; operating margin 24.8% vs 20.1%; ttm roe 8.7% vs 8.4%.
What do the current signals say about CFG and FITB?
CFG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FITB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 CFG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FITB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CFG and FITB 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.