EBC vs FFIN Stock Comparison
Compare EBC and FFIN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EBC and FFIN?
EBC leads the current stock comparison as Eastern Bankshares, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Eastern Bankshares, Inc. vs First Financial Bankshares, Inc.
EBC leads
EBC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support EBC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Eastern Bankshares, Inc.
First Financial Bankshares, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EBC over FFIN, 51 versus 50 as of Sep 6, 2026. EBC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while FFIN holds the stronger quality profile. EBC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EBC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. EBC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Eastern Bankshares, Inc. and First Financial Bankshares, Inc. 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 EBC and FFIN 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.
- Value30%46 vs 33EBC +13
- Quality30%68 vs 73FFIN +5
- Risk Resilience15%59 vs 63FFIN +4
- Momentum25%31 vs 33Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor EBC. EBC’s edge is concentrated in value; FFIN keeps a meaningful quality 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.
EBC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EBC and FFIN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EBC (Eastern Bankshares, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
FFIN (First Financial Bankshares, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
EBCEBC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EBCEBC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EBCEBC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FFINFFIN on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
EBCEBC 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 | EBC | FFIN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.9% | +4.7% | EBC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +11.8% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 2 | 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 EBC. 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 | 51 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | FFIN | revenue growth -6.8% vs 3.1%; TTM ROE 9% vs 14%; gross margin 72.6% vs 73.1%; operating margin 24% vs 38% |
| Valuation | EBC | Value 46 vs 33 |
| Technicals | EBC | Price vs 50-day -2.1% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day 8.2% vs 3.2% |
| Risk Resilience | FFIN | Risk Resilience 59 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | EBC | Target upside 13.9% vs 4.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EBC and FFIN 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 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 EBC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5EBC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EBC +1
- 51 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- EBC +2
- 51 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- EBC +1
- 60 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- EBC +3
- 62 vs 59
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jun 8 when EBC moved ahead of FFIN.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.56%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.62%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
EBC 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 +0.72%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.3%, 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.
- 1FFIN closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to EBC's edge.
- 2FFIN's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3EBC'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
FFIN leads on balance| Metric | EBC | FFIN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.8% | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 65.5% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 72.6% | 73.1% |
| Operating margin | 24% | 38% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9% | 14% |
| Debt to equity | 0.09 | 0.04 |
Performance
EBC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EBC | FFIN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12% | 3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.1% | 11.2% |
| Year to date | 20.7% | 12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.7% | -8.7% |
Technicals
EBC has the stronger structure| Metric | EBC | FFIN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.3 | 32.1 |
| ADX (14) | 32.4 | 24 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.1% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.2% | 3.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.2% | 15.9% |
Risk
FFIN is the more resilient| Metric | EBC | FFIN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.8 | 0.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.9 | -0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | -0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -15.6% | -23.2% |
| Current drawdown | -6% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.5% | 24.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EBC or FFIN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EBC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 51 against FFIN's 50. The edge comes from value. FFIN is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 EBC or FFIN the better buy right now?
EBC 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EBC over FFIN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. EBC leads Value by 13 points; FFIN leads Quality by 5 points; FFIN leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EBC or FFIN?
Analyst price targets imply +13.9% upside for EBC and +4.7% for FFIN, so the Street currently favors EBC. 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, EBC or FFIN?
EBC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EBC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, EBC or FFIN?
EBC 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, EBC or FFIN?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, EBC or FFIN?
FFIN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FFIN on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 EBC more profitable than FFIN?
FFIN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 72.6% vs 73.1%; operating margin 24% vs 38%; ttm roe 9% vs 14%.
Is EBC's lead over FFIN getting stronger or weaker?
EBC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-08, when EBC moved ahead of FFIN.
What would change the EBC vs FFIN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FFIN closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to EBC's edge; FFIN's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; EBC'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 EBC and FFIN?
EBC: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FFIN: 1 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 EBC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FFIN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EBC and FFIN 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.