FIBK vs FULT Stock Comparison
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. vs Fulton Financial Corporation
FULT leads
FULT leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FULT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc.
Fulton Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FULT over FIBK, 55 versus 44 as of Sep 5, 2026. FULT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. FULT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FULT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FULT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. and Fulton Financial Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FIBK and FULT 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 64FULT +27
- Value30%50 vs 58FULT +8
- Momentum25%32 vs 36FULT +4
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 64Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FULT. FULT’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.
FULT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FIBK and FULT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FULT (Fulton Financial 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
FULTFULT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FULTFULT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FULTFULT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
FULTFULT on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
FULTFULT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FULTFULT 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 | FULT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.5% | +3.7% | FULT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.8% | +16% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FULT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FULT | 44 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | FIBKon balance | revenue growth -74.6% vs 11.6%; EPS growth 42.6% vs 2%; TTM ROE 9.6% vs 11.2%; gross margin 105.2% vs 69.3%; operating margin 43.8% vs 25.7% — FIBK takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FULT | Value 50 vs 58 |
| Technicals | FULT | Price vs 50-day -1% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 4.3% vs 10.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 63 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | FULT | Target upside -5.5% vs 3.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FIBK and FULT 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 11 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 FULT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FULT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FULT +11
- 44 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- FULT +9
- 47 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- FULT +9
- 52 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- FULT +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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.08%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FULT 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 +0.96%, 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 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to FULT's edge.
- 2FIBK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FULT'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 | FIBK | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -74.6% | 11.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.6% | 2% |
| Gross margin | 105.2% | 69.3% |
| Operating margin | 43.8% | 25.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.6% | 11.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.45 |
Performance
FULT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FIBK | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.6% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | -2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.9% | 8.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.1% | 15.4% |
| Year to date | 8.3% | 23.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.1% | 22.8% |
Technicals
FULT has the stronger structure| Metric | FIBK | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 12 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.3% | 10.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.7% | 15.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FIBK | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.91 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | 0.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.75 | 1.12 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -6.8% | -5.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 27% | 25.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FIBK or FULT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FULT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 55 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 FULT the better buy right now?
FULT 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 FULT over FIBK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FULT leads Quality by 27 points; FULT leads Value by 8 points; FULT leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FIBK or FULT?
Analyst price targets imply -5.5% upside for FIBK and +3.7% for FULT, so the Street currently favors FULT. 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 FULT?
FULT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FULT 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 FULT?
FULT 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 FULT?
FULT on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, FIBK or FULT?
FULT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FULT 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 FULT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 105.2% vs 69.3%; operating margin 43.8% vs 25.7%; ttm roe 9.6% vs 11.2%. FIBK leads on two measures and FULT 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 FULT's lead over FIBK getting stronger or weaker?
FULT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 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 FULT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FIBK closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to FULT's edge; FIBK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; FULT'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 FIBK and FULT?
FIBK: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FULT: 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 FIBK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FULT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FIBK and FULT 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.