FBNC vs FBP Stock Comparison
FBP currently leads FBNC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 51. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between FBNC 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
First Bancorp vs First BanCorp.
FBP leads
FBP leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FBNC on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support FBP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Bancorp
First BanCorp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FBP over FBNC, 65 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. FBP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. FBP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FBNC. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FBP today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FBP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions. FBP leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare First Bancorp and First 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 FBNC 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 Resilience60 vs 78FBP +18
- Value30 vs 46FBP +16
- Momentum51 vs 65FBP +14
- Quality66 vs 78FBP +12
5 of 6 evidence groups favor FBP. FBP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
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 +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
FBP's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FBNC 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 value.
FBNC (First Bancorp): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 22.6% against 16.2%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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 most heavily.
Growth
FBPFBP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FBPFBP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
FBPFBP on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
FBPFBP on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
FBNCFBNC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FBP, analyst targets favor FBNC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FBNC | FBP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.2% | +13.4% | FBNC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.2% | +16.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FBNC | FBP |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.80% | 29.20% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.200 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.910 | $0.720 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #259 | not ranked |
FBP grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 29.20% a year against FBNC's 4.80%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
5 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 | 51 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | FBP | revenue growth -86.5% vs 1.8%; EPS growth 8% vs 10.5%; TTM ROE 8% vs 19%; gross margin 63.6% vs 74.8%; operating margin 11.1% vs 35.3% |
| Valuation | FBP | Value 30 vs 46 |
| Technicals | FBP | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day 2.3% vs 11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | FBP | Risk Resilience 60 vs 78 |
| Analyst expectations | FBNC | Target upside 15.2% vs 13.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FBNC and FBP and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20FBP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FBP +14
- 51 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- FBP +15
- 47 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- FBP +9
- 48 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- FBP +7
- 59 vs 66
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 FBP
- 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.
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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.86%, AIQ +3 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.87%, 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.
- 1FBNC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to FBP's edge.
- 2FBNC'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 — 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
FBP leads on balance| Metric | FBNC | FBP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -86.5% | 1.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8% | 10.5% |
| Gross margin | 63.6% | 74.8% |
| Operating margin | 11.1% | 35.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8% | 19% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 0.1 |
Performance
FBP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FBNC | FBP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.9% | 3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.3% | 2.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.7% | -4.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.1% | 14.7% |
| Year to date | 21.2% | 33% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 32.9% | 36.1% |
Technicals
FBP has the stronger structure| Metric | FBNC | FBP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.3 | 69.9 |
| ADX (14) | 27.2 | 22.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.3% | 11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.6% | 16.2% |
Risk
FBP is the more resilient| Metric | FBNC | FBP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.99 | 1.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.42 | 1.9 |
| Max drawdown | -15.3% | -12.8% |
| Current drawdown | -7.2% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 23.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FBNC or FBP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FBP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 65 against FBNC's 51. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 FBNC or FBP the better buy right now?
FBP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FBP over FBNC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FBP leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; FBP leads Value by 16 points; FBP leads Momentum by 14 points. FBP leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by FBNC simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, FBNC or FBP?
Analyst price targets imply +15.2% upside for FBNC and +13.4% for FBP, so the Street currently favors FBNC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FBP. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, FBNC or FBP?
FBP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FBP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, FBNC or FBP?
FBP 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, FBNC or FBP?
FBP on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, FBNC or FBP?
FBP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FBP 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 FBNC more profitable than FBP?
FBP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.6% vs 74.8%; operating margin 11.1% vs 35.3%; ttm roe 8% vs 19%.
Is FBP's lead over FBNC getting stronger or weaker?
FBP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FBNC vs FBP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FBNC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to FBP's edge; FBNC'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 — 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 FBNC and FBP?
FBNC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FBP: 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 FBNC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FBP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FBNC and FBP 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.