CFG vs HBAN Stock Comparison
HBAN currently leads CFG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 54. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between CFG and HBAN?
HBAN leads the current stock comparison as Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. vs Huntington Bancshares Incorporated
HBAN leads
HBAN leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support HBAN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HBAN over CFG, 57 versus 54 as of Oct 22, 2026. HBAN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. HBAN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HBAN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. HBAN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Citizens Financial Group, Inc. and Huntington Bancshares Incorporated 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 HBAN 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.
- Risk Resilience63 vs 81HBAN +18
- Momentum45 vs 49HBAN +4
- Quality58 vs 57Even
- Value52 vs 53Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor HBAN. HBAN’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
HBAN's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CFG and HBAN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HBAN (Huntington Bancshares Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
CFG (Citizens Financial Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
HBANHBAN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HBANHBAN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
HBANHBAN on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
HBANHBAN on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
HBANHBAN 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 | HBAN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.8% | +27.7% | HBAN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.1% | +24.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CFG | HBAN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.97% | 0.66% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.560 | $0.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.720 | $0.620 |
| Years increased | 3 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #330 | #346 |
CFG grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 1.97% a year against HBAN's 0.66%. 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 HBAN. 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 | 54 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 2.3% vs 10.6%; EPS growth 8.4% vs 46.2%; TTM ROE 8.7% vs 8.6%; gross margin 73.3% vs 63.7%; operating margin 24.8% vs 20.4% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 52 vs 53 |
| Technicals | CFG | Price vs 50-day -4.2% vs -3.3%; vs 200-day -1.8% vs -7.4% |
| Risk Resilience | HBAN | Risk Resilience 63 vs 81 |
| Analyst expectations | HBAN | Target upside 22.8% vs 27.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CFG and HBAN 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 HBAN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20HBAN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HBAN +3
- 54 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- HBAN +2
- 52 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- HBAN +1
- 50 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- HBAN +3
- 61 vs 64
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when CFG moved ahead of HBAN.
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
Only CFG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.50%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only HBAN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.19%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
HBAN 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 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 +1.16%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1CFG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to HBAN's edge.
- 2CFG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3HBAN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
Split| Metric | CFG | HBAN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.3% | 10.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 46.2% |
| Gross margin | 73.3% | 63.7% |
| Operating margin | 24.8% | 20.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.7% | 8.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.71 | 0.67 |
Performance
CFG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CFG | HBAN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.9% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.3% | -14.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.7% | -8.4% |
| Year to date | 9.9% | -10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 32.7% | 1.1% |
Technicals
CFG has the stronger structure| Metric | CFG | HBAN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.8 | 58 |
| ADX (14) | 32.1 | 33 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.2% | -3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.8% | -7.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.9% | 18.9% |
Risk
HBAN is the more resilient| Metric | CFG | HBAN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.9 | 0.78 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | -0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.53 | -0.01 |
| Max drawdown | -18.3% | -22.1% |
| Current drawdown | -14.1% | -19.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.4% | 26.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CFG or HBAN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HBAN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 57 against CFG's 54. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 CFG or HBAN the better buy right now?
HBAN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HBAN over CFG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HBAN leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; HBAN leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CFG or HBAN?
Analyst price targets imply +22.8% upside for CFG and +27.7% for HBAN, so the Street currently favors HBAN. 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, CFG or HBAN?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 HBAN?
HBAN 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 HBAN?
HBAN on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 HBAN?
HBAN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HBAN on Risk Resilience, by 18 points. 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 HBAN?
CFG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 73.3% vs 63.7%; operating margin 24.8% vs 20.4%; ttm roe 8.7% vs 8.6%.
Is HBAN's lead over CFG getting stronger or weaker?
HBAN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-08, when CFG moved ahead of HBAN.
What would change the CFG vs HBAN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CFG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to HBAN's edge; CFG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; HBAN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 CFG and HBAN?
CFG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. HBAN: 1 bullish / 3 bearish, 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 HBAN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CFG and HBAN 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.