FHN vs FIBK Stock Comparison
First Horizon Corporation vs First Interstate BancSystem, Inc.
FHN leads
FHN leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FHN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Horizon Corporation
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FHN over FIBK, 54 versus 44 as of Sep 5, 2026. FHN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while FIBK holds the stronger risk resilience 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FHN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare First Horizon Corporation and First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FHN and FIBK 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.
- Quality30%65 vs 37FHN +28
- Value30%56 vs 50FHN +6
- Risk Resilience15%58 vs 63FIBK +5
- Momentum25%35 vs 32Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FHN. FHN’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; FIBK keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
FHN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FHN and FIBK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FHN (First Horizon Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
FIBK (First Interstate BancSystem, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, 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 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FIBKFIBK on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 | FHN | FIBK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | -5.5% | FHN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +10.8% | +16.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 4 | 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 | FHN | 54 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | FIBKon balance | revenue growth 43.9% vs -74.6%; EPS growth 1.9% vs 42.6%; TTM ROE 11.7% vs 9.6%; gross margin 75.4% vs 105.2%; operating margin 29.9% vs 43.8% — FIBK takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FHN | Value 56 vs 50 |
| Technicals | FIBK | Price vs 50-day -1.8% vs -1%; vs 200-day 2.9% vs 4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | FIBK | Risk Resilience 58 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | FHN | Target upside 11.3% vs -5.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FHN and FIBK 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 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)
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 23 – Sep 4FHN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FHN +10
- 54 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- FHN +8
- 55 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- FHN +10
- 62 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- FHN +10
- 65 vs 55
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.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.43%)
- 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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.99%, 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.
- 1FIBK closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to FHN's edge.
- 2FIBK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 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
FIBK leads on balance| Metric | FHN | FIBK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 43.9% | -74.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1.9% | 42.6% |
| Gross margin | 75.4% | 105.2% |
| Operating margin | 29.9% | 43.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.7% | 9.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.47 | 0.23 |
Performance
FIBK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FHN | FIBK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | 0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.6% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 4.4% | 8.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.4% | 15.1% |
Technicals
FIBK has the stronger structure| Metric | FHN | FIBK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.8 | 31 |
| ADX (14) | 18.2 | 12 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.8% | -1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.9% | 4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21% | 16.7% |
Risk
FIBK is the more resilient| Metric | FHN | FIBK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 0.91 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.38 | 0.52 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.47 | 0.75 |
| Max drawdown | -17.2% | -17.9% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -6.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.5% | 27% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FHN or FIBK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FHN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 54 against FIBK's 44. The edge comes from quality and value. FIBK is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 FHN or FIBK 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FHN over FIBK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FHN leads Quality by 28 points; FHN leads Value by 6 points; FIBK leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FHN or FIBK?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for FHN and -5.5% for FIBK, 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, FHN or FIBK?
FHN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FHN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, FHN or FIBK?
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, FHN or FIBK?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, FHN or FIBK?
FIBK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FIBK on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 FHN more profitable than FIBK?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 75.4% vs 105.2%; operating margin 29.9% vs 43.8%; ttm roe 11.7% vs 9.6%. FHN leads on one measure and FIBK 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 FHN's lead over FIBK getting stronger or weaker?
FHN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 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 FHN vs FIBK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FIBK closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to FHN's edge; FIBK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; 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 FHN and FIBK?
FHN: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FIBK: 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 FHN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FIBK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FHN and FIBK 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.