FBP vs FHN Stock Comparison
First BanCorp. vs First Horizon Corporation
FBP leads
FBP leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors FHN on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FBP, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First BanCorp.
First Horizon Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FBP over FHN, 61 versus 54 as of Sep 5, 2026. FBP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while FHN holds the stronger value profile. FBP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FHN. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FBP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FBP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 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 FBP 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.
- Risk Resilience15%77 vs 58FBP +19
- Quality30%78 vs 65FBP +13
- Momentum25%48 vs 35FBP +13
- Value30%47 vs 56FHN +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FBP. FBP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; FHN keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
FBP's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FBP and FHN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FBP (First BanCorp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
FHN (First Horizon Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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 at 30% each.
Growth
FHNFHN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FHNFHN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
FBPFBP on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
FBPFBP on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
FHNFHN 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 FHN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FBP | FHN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.7% | +11.3% | FHN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.6% | +10.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 5 | 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.
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 | 61 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | FBPon balance | revenue growth 1.8% vs 43.9%; EPS growth 10.5% vs 1.9%; TTM ROE 19% vs 11.7%; gross margin 74.8% vs 75.4%; operating margin 35.3% vs 29.9% — FBP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FHN | Value 47 vs 56 |
| Technicals | FBP | Price vs 50-day 1.8% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day 20.1% vs 2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | FBP | Risk Resilience 77 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | FHN | Target upside 1.7% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FBP and FHN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 7 points.
- 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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4FBP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FBP +7
- 61 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- FBP +7
- 62 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- FBP +5
- 67 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- FBP +4
- 69 vs 65
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (18.21%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, 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.
- 1FHN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to FBP's edge.
- 2FHN'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 — 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
FBP leads on balance| Metric | FBP | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.8% | 43.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10.5% | 1.9% |
| Gross margin | 74.8% | 75.4% |
| Operating margin | 35.3% | 29.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.1 | 0.47 |
Performance
FBP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FBP | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.7% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.1% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 35.7% | 6.6% |
| Year to date | 37.2% | 4.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 29.3% | 11.4% |
Technicals
FBP has the stronger structure| Metric | FBP | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.9 | 33.8 |
| ADX (14) | 25.9 | 18.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.8% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 20.1% | 2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.5% | 21% |
Risk
FBP is the more resilient| Metric | FBP | FHN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.49 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1 | 0.38 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.49 | 0.47 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -17.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4.2% | -4.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.9% | 25.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FBP or FHN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FBP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 against FHN's 54. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. FHN is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 FBP or FHN the better buy right now?
FBP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FBP over FHN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FBP leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; FBP leads Quality by 13 points; FBP leads Momentum by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FBP or FHN?
Analyst price targets imply +1.7% upside for FBP and +11.3% for FHN, so the Street currently favors FHN. 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 FHN?
FHN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FHN 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 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, FBP or FHN?
FBP on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, FBP or FHN?
FBP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FBP on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 FBP more profitable than FHN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.8% vs 75.4%; operating margin 35.3% vs 29.9%; ttm roe 19% vs 11.7%. FBP leads on two measures and FHN on one measure, 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 FHN getting stronger or weaker?
FBP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FBP vs FHN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FHN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to FBP's edge; FHN'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 — 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 FBP and FHN?
FBP: 2 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 FBP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FHN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FBP 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.