FBNC vs FHN Stock Comparison
FHN currently leads FBNC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 51. The clearest difference is value, while FBNC has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FBNC and FHN?
FHN leads the current stock comparison as First Horizon Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ 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 Oct 21, 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.
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 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 vs 54FHN +24
- Momentum51 vs 42FBNC +9
- Quality66 vs 61FBNC +5
- Risk Resilience60 vs 60Even
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 2026-10-20, 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 +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
FHN's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
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, quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 22.6% against 15.5%.
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 most heavily.
Growth
FBNCFBNC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FHNFHN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
FBNCFBNC on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
FHNFHN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | +15.2% | +19.2% | FHN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.2% | +21.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FBNC | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.80% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.910 | $0.600 |
| Years increased | 3 | 0 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #259 | #349 |
FBNC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.80% a year against FHN's 0.00%. 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
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 -37.3%; EPS growth 8% vs -136.4%; TTM ROE 8% vs 7.9%; gross margin 63.6% vs 73.7%; operating margin 11.1% vs 22.8% — FHN takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FHN | Value 30 vs 54 |
| Technicals | FBNC | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs -3.6%; vs 200-day 2.3% vs -5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | FHN | Target upside 15.2% vs 19.2% |
✓ 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 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 FHN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FHN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FHN +3
- 51 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- FHN +6
- 47 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- FHN +3
- 48 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- FHN +1
- 59 vs 60
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FBNC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.66%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only FHN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.16%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.61%, 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.
- 1FBNC closes the Value gap — currently 24 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 2 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
FHN leads on balance| Metric | FBNC | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -86.5% | -37.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8% | -136.4% |
| Gross margin | 63.6% | 73.7% |
| Operating margin | 11.1% | 22.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8% | 7.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 0.47 |
Performance
FBNC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FBNC | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.9% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.3% | -1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.7% | -10.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.1% | -6.3% |
| Year to date | 21.2% | -3.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 32.9% | 15.6% |
Technicals
FBNC has the stronger structure| Metric | FBNC | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.3 | 50.8 |
| ADX (14) | 27.2 | 30.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | -3.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.3% | -5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.6% | 15.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FBNC | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.99 | 0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.42 | 0.76 |
| Max drawdown | -15.3% | -17.2% |
| Current drawdown | -7.2% | -12.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 22.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
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 Oct 21, 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 Oct 21, 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, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FHN leads Value by 24 points; FBNC leads Momentum by 9 points; FBNC leads Quality by 5 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 +15.2% upside for FBNC and +19.2% 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 24 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?
FBNC 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 9 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 FHN?
FHN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FHN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 FHN?
FHN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.6% vs 73.7%; operating margin 11.1% vs 22.8%; ttm roe 8% vs 7.9%.
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 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. 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 24 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 2 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 FHN?
FBNC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FHN: 1 bullish / 2 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 FBNC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FHN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FBNC and FHN 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.