FIBK vs FNB Stock Comparison
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. vs F.N.B. Corporation
FNB leads
FNB leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FNB, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc.
F.N.B. Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNB over FIBK, 52 versus 44 as of Sep 5, 2026. FNB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. FNB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FNB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FNB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. and F.N.B. Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FIBK and FNB 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%37 vs 57FNB +20
- Value30%50 vs 58FNB +8
- Momentum25%32 vs 31Even
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 62Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FNB. FNB’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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.
FNB's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FIBK and FNB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNB (F.N.B. Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
FIBK (First Interstate BancSystem, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals.
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
FNBFNB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FNBFNB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNBFNB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FIBKFIBK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FNBFNB 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 | FIBK | FNB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.5% | +10.9% | FNB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.8% | +14.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 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 FNB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FNB | 44 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | FIBKon balance | revenue growth -74.6% vs 2.2%; EPS growth 42.6% vs 10.5%; TTM ROE 9.6% vs 8.9%; gross margin 105.2% vs 64.4%; operating margin 43.8% vs 26.5% — FIBK takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FNB | Value 50 vs 58 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1% vs -1.3%; vs 200-day 4.3% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 63 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | FNB | Target upside -5.5% vs 10.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FIBK and FNB 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 8 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 FNB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FNB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FNB +8
- 44 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- FNB +7
- 47 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- FNB +10
- 52 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- FNB +10
- 55 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.
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
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.47%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
FNB 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 +0.99%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.08%, 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.
- 1FIBK closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNB's edge.
- 2FIBK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FNB'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
FIBK leads on balance| Metric | FIBK | FNB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -74.6% | 2.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.6% | 10.5% |
| Gross margin | 105.2% | 64.4% |
| Operating margin | 43.8% | 26.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.6% | 8.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.73 |
Performance
FIBK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FIBK | FNB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.6% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | -2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.9% | 4.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.1% | 9.3% |
| Year to date | 8.3% | 8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.1% | 12.7% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FIBK | FNB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31 | 29.4 |
| ADX (14) | 12 | 22.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | -1.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.3% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.7% | 18.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FIBK | FNB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.91 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | 0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.75 | 0.55 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -16.3% |
| Current drawdown | -6.8% | -5.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 27% | 24.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FIBK or FNB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FNB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 52 against FIBK's 44. The edge comes from quality 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 FIBK or FNB the better buy right now?
FNB 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 FNB over FIBK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FNB leads Quality by 20 points; FNB leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FIBK or FNB?
Analyst price targets imply -5.5% upside for FIBK and +10.9% for FNB, so the Street currently favors FNB. 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, FIBK or FNB?
FNB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FNB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, FIBK or FNB?
FNB 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, FIBK or FNB?
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, FIBK or FNB?
FIBK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FIBK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FIBK more profitable than FNB?
FIBK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 105.2% vs 64.4%; operating margin 43.8% vs 26.5%; ttm roe 9.6% vs 8.9%.
Is FNB's lead over FIBK getting stronger or weaker?
FNB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 FIBK vs FNB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FIBK closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNB's edge; FIBK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; FNB'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 FIBK and FNB?
FIBK: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FNB: 2 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 FIBK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FNB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FIBK and FNB 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.