FBP vs FFIN Stock Comparison
FBP currently leads FFIN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 52. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between FBP and FFIN?
FBP leads the current stock comparison as First BanCorp., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
First BanCorp. vs First Financial Bankshares, Inc.
FBP leads
FBP leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FFIN on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FBP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First BanCorp.
First Financial Bankshares, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FBP over FFIN, 65 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. FBP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. FBP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FFIN. 4 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 8 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare First BanCorp. and First Financial Bankshares, Inc. 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 FBP 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.
- Momentum65 vs 27FBP +38
- Value46 vs 37FBP +9
- Quality78 vs 75Even
- Risk Resilience78 vs 78Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FBP. FBP’s edge is concentrated in momentum 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 +4
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
FBP's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FBP and FFIN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FBP (First BanCorp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
FFIN (First Financial Bankshares, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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 9 points.
Momentum
FBPFBP on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
FBPFBP carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FFINFFIN 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 FFIN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FBP | FFIN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.4% | +16.9% | FFIN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.1% | +5.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 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 | FBP | FFIN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 29.20% | 8.02% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.200 | $0.510 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.750 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #145 |
FBP grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 29.20% a year against FFIN's 8.02%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — 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
4 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 | 65 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | FBPon balance | revenue growth 1.8% vs 1.3%; EPS growth 10.5% vs 4%; TTM ROE 19% vs 15.1%; gross margin 74.8% vs 76.3%; operating margin 35.3% vs 40.5% — FBP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FBP | Value 46 vs 37 |
| Technicals | FBP | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs -9.1%; vs 200-day 11.5% vs -7.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 78 vs 78 |
| Analyst expectations | FFIN | Target upside 13.4% vs 16.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FBP and FFIN 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 13 points. (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 8 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FBP +13
- 65 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- FBP +13
- 62 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- FBP +8
- 57 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- FBP +10
- 66 vs 56
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FBP
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FFIN
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active.
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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.87%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.39%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to FBP's edge.
- 2FFIN's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 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 | FBP | FFIN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.8% | 1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10.5% | 4% |
| Gross margin | 74.8% | 76.3% |
| Operating margin | 35.3% | 40.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19% | 15.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.1 | 0.04 |
Performance
FBP leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FBP | FFIN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.3% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.5% | -6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.4% | -12.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 14.7% | -6.4% |
| Year to date | 33% | 1.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 36.1% | -3.7% |
Technicals
FBP has the stronger structure| Metric | FBP | FFIN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.9 | 33.1 |
| ADX (14) | 22.4 | 43.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | -9.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.5% | -7.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 21.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FBP | FFIN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.41 | 0.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.2 | -0.24 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.9 | -0.33 |
| Max drawdown | -12.8% | -18% |
| Current drawdown | -7.1% | -17.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.6% | 23.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FBP or FFIN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FBP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 65 against FFIN's 52. The edge comes from momentum 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 FBP or FFIN the better buy right now?
FBP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 FFIN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FBP leads Momentum by 38 points; FBP leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FBP or FFIN?
Analyst price targets imply +13.4% upside for FBP and +16.9% for FFIN, so the Street currently favors FFIN. 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, FBP or FFIN?
FBP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FBP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, FBP or FFIN?
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, FBP or FFIN?
FBP on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, FBP or FFIN?
FBP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FBP 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 FBP more profitable than FFIN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.8% vs 76.3%; operating margin 35.3% vs 40.5%; ttm roe 19% vs 15.1%. FBP leads on one measure and FFIN on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is FBP's lead over FFIN getting stronger or weaker?
FBP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 13 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 FBP vs FFIN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FFIN closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to FBP's edge; FFIN's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; 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 FBP and FFIN?
FBP: 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 FBP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FFIN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FBP and FFIN 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.