CTBI vs FBP Stock Comparison
Compare CTBI and FBP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CTBI and FBP?
FBP leads the current stock comparison as First BanCorp., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. vs First BanCorp.
FBP leads
FBP leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FBP, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Community Trust Bancorp, Inc.
First BanCorp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FBP over CTBI, 62 versus 58 as of Sep 6, 2026. FBP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CTBI holds the stronger momentum profile. FBP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FBP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. FBP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. and First BanCorp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare CTBI and FBP 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 Resilience15%60 vs 77FBP +17
- Quality30%66 vs 78FBP +12
- Momentum25%57 vs 50CTBI +7
- Value30%49 vs 47Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FBP. FBP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CTBI keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
FBP's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTBI and FBP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FBP (First BanCorp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CTBI (Community Trust Bancorp, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum.
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
FBPFBP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CTBICTBI on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
FBPFBP on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CTBI | FBP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.5% | +1.7% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +7.5% | +27.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FBP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FBP | 58 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | FBPon balance | revenue growth 5.5% vs 1.8%; EPS growth 8.6% vs 10.5%; TTM ROE 12.5% vs 19%; gross margin 68.6% vs 74.8%; operating margin 33.1% vs 35.3% — FBP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 49 vs 47 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 2.4% vs 1.7%; vs 200-day 18.4% vs 20.1% |
| Risk Resilience | FBP | Risk Resilience 60 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 2.5% vs 1.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTBI and FBP 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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)
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 FBP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5FBP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FBP +4
- 58 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- FBP +6
- 56 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- FBP +6
- 62 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- FBP +7
- 61 vs 68
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.58%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (18.15%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
FBP 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.35%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.21%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1CTBI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to FBP's edge.
- 2CTBI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FBP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
FBP leads on balance| Metric | CTBI | FBP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.5% | 1.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 10.5% |
| Gross margin | 68.6% | 74.8% |
| Operating margin | 33.1% | 35.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.5% | 19% |
| Debt to equity | 0.42 | 0.1 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CTBI | FBP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15.1% | 17.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 29.9% | 38% |
| Year to date | 37.6% | 37.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 33.6% | 29.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CTBI | FBP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.7 | 36.4 |
| ADX (14) | 18.7 | 24.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.4% | 1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.4% | 20.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.6% | 18% |
Risk
FBP is the more resilient| Metric | CTBI | FBP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | 0.48 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.07 | 0.95 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.64 | 1.42 |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -13.8% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -4% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.4% | 24.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTBI or FBP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FBP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 62 against CTBI's 58. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CTBI is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CTBI or FBP the better buy right now?
FBP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FBP over CTBI?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FBP leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; FBP leads Quality by 12 points; CTBI leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTBI or FBP?
Analyst price targets imply +2.5% upside for CTBI and +1.7% for FBP. 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, CTBI or FBP?
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, CTBI or FBP?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, CTBI or FBP?
CTBI on the Momentum factor, by 7 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, CTBI or FBP?
FBP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FBP on Risk Resilience, by 17 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CTBI more profitable than FBP?
FBP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 68.6% vs 74.8%; operating margin 33.1% vs 35.3%; ttm roe 12.5% vs 19%.
Is FBP's lead over CTBI getting stronger or weaker?
FBP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CTBI vs FBP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CTBI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to FBP's edge; CTBI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FBP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CTBI and FBP?
CTBI: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FBP: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 CTBI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FBP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CTBI and FBP with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.