FBNC vs FHN Stock Comparison
First Bancorp vs First Horizon Corporation
FHN leads
FHN leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FHN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Bancorp
First Horizon Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FHN over FBNC, 54 versus 51 as of Sep 5, 2026. FHN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while FBNC holds the stronger momentum profile. FHN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FHN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. FHN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare First Bancorp and First Horizon Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FBNC and FHN 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%31 vs 56FHN +25
- Momentum25%52 vs 35FBNC +17
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 58FBNC +4
- Quality30%66 vs 65Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FHN. FHN’s edge is concentrated in value; FBNC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +14
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
FHN's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FBNC and FHN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FHN (First Horizon Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
FBNC (First Bancorp): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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
FHNFHN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FHNFHN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FHNFHN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
FBNCFBNC on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
FBNCFBNC on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
FHNFHN 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 | FBNC | FHN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.6% | +11.3% | FHN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.3% | +10.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 5 | 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 FHN. 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 54 |
| Fundamentals | FHNon balance | revenue growth -86.5% vs 43.9%; EPS growth 8% vs 1.9%; TTM ROE 8% vs 11.7%; gross margin 63.6% vs 75.4%; operating margin 11.1% vs 29.9% — FHN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FHN | Value 31 vs 56 |
| Technicals | FBNC | Price vs 50-day 1.4% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day 10% vs 2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | FBNC | Risk Resilience 62 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | FHN | Target upside 7.6% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FBNC and FHN 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 FHN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3FHN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FHN +3
- 51 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- FHN +3
- 52 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- FHN +2
- 59 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- FHN +5
- 60 vs 65
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when FHN moved ahead of FBNC.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.68%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.71%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FHN 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 +1.09%, AIQ +3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, 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 Value gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to FHN's edge.
- 2FBNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FHN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
FHN leads on balance| Metric | FBNC | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -86.5% | 43.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8% | 1.9% |
| Gross margin | 63.6% | 75.4% |
| Operating margin | 11.1% | 29.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 0.47 |
Performance
FBNC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FBNC | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.3% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.8% | 6.6% |
| Year to date | 26.7% | 4.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.2% | 11.4% |
Technicals
FBNC has the stronger structure| Metric | FBNC | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.9 | 33.8 |
| ADX (14) | 17.3 | 18.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10% | 2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.1% | 21% |
Risk
FBNC is the more resilient| Metric | FBNC | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.61 | 0.38 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.84 | 0.47 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -17.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3% | -4.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 25.5% |
| 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 is better, FBNC or FHN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FHN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 54 against FBNC's 51. The edge comes from value. FBNC 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 FBNC or FHN the better buy right now?
FHN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FHN over FBNC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FHN leads Value by 25 points; FBNC leads Momentum by 17 points; FBNC leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FBNC or FHN?
Analyst price targets imply +7.6% upside for FBNC and +11.3% for FHN, so the Street currently favors FHN. 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, FBNC or FHN?
FHN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FHN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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 FHN?
FHN 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 FHN?
FBNC on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, FBNC or FHN?
FBNC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FBNC 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 FBNC more profitable than FHN?
FHN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.6% vs 75.4%; operating margin 11.1% vs 29.9%; ttm roe 8% vs 11.7%.
Is FHN's lead over FBNC getting stronger or weaker?
FHN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when FHN moved ahead of FBNC.
What would change the FBNC vs FHN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FBNC closes the Value gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to FHN's edge; FBNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FHN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 FBNC and FHN?
FBNC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FHN: 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 FBNC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FHN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FBNC and FHN 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.