FIBK vs GBCI Stock Comparison
GBCI currently leads FIBK in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while FIBK has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FIBK and GBCI?
GBCI leads the current stock comparison as Glacier Bancorp, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. vs Glacier Bancorp, Inc.
GBCI leads
GBCI leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support GBCI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc.
Glacier Bancorp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GBCI over FIBK, 50 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. GBCI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while FIBK holds the stronger value profile. GBCI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GBCI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. GBCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. and Glacier Bancorp, 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 FIBK and GBCI 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.
- Quality37 vs 60GBCI +23
- Value48 vs 34FIBK +14
- Momentum40 vs 53GBCI +13
- Risk Resilience62 vs 60Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor GBCI. GBCI’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; FIBK keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 +13
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
GBCI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FIBK and GBCI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GBCI (Glacier Bancorp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
FIBK (First Interstate BancSystem, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
GBCIGBCI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GBCIGBCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FIBKFIBK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
GBCIGBCI on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
GBCIGBCI carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GBCIGBCI 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 | GBCI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.2% | +27.5% | GBCI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.8% | +10.5% | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FIBK | GBCI |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 6.07% | 2.27% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.400 | $1.180 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.880 | $1.320 |
| Years increased | 3 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #209 | not ranked |
FIBK grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.07% a year against GBCI's 2.27%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GBCI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GBCI | 45 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | FIBKon balance | revenue growth -74.6% vs -8.7%; EPS growth 42.6% vs 19%; TTM ROE 9.6% vs 7.6%; gross margin 105.2% vs 73.8%; operating margin 43.8% vs 24.7% — FIBK takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FIBK | Value 48 vs 34 |
| Technicals | FIBK | Price vs 50-day -2.7% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day -1.9% vs -6.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | GBCI | Target upside 0.2% vs 27.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FIBK and GBCI 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 GBCI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GBCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GBCI +5
- 45 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- GBCI +5
- 41 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 44 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- FIBK +3
- 52 vs 49
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 24 when FIBK moved ahead of GBCI.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FIBK
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.06%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GBCI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.74%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
GBCI 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.31%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.43%, AIQ +2 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 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to GBCI's edge.
- 2FIBK's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3GBCI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
FIBK leads on balance| Metric | FIBK | GBCI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -74.6% | -8.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.6% | 19% |
| Gross margin | 105.2% | 73.8% |
| Operating margin | 43.8% | 24.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.6% | 7.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.51 |
Performance
FIBK leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FIBK | GBCI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.4% | 3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.7% | 0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | -13% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | -9.3% |
| Year to date | 2.8% | 1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.3% | -1.2% |
Technicals
FIBK has the stronger structure| Metric | FIBK | GBCI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.9 | 62.6 |
| ADX (14) | 27.6 | 32.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.7% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.9% | -6.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.5% | 17.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FIBK | GBCI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.83 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.66 | 0.03 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.99 | 0.05 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -11.6% | -18.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.1% | 26.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FIBK or GBCI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GBCI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 50 against FIBK's 45. The edge comes from quality and momentum. FIBK 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 FIBK or GBCI the better buy right now?
GBCI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GBCI over FIBK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GBCI leads Quality by 23 points; FIBK leads Value by 14 points; GBCI leads Momentum by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FIBK or GBCI?
Analyst price targets imply +0.2% upside for FIBK and +27.5% for GBCI, so the Street currently favors GBCI. 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 GBCI?
FIBK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FIBK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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 GBCI?
GBCI 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 GBCI?
GBCI on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, FIBK or GBCI?
GBCI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GBCI 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 FIBK more profitable than GBCI?
FIBK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 105.2% vs 73.8%; operating margin 43.8% vs 24.7%; ttm roe 9.6% vs 7.6%.
Is GBCI's lead over FIBK getting stronger or weaker?
GBCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-24, when FIBK moved ahead of GBCI.
What would change the FIBK vs GBCI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FIBK closes the Quality gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to GBCI's edge; FIBK's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; GBCI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 FIBK and GBCI?
FIBK: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. GBCI: 1 bullish / 2 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 GBCI it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FIBK and GBCI 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.