FNB vs FULT Stock Comparison
F.N.B. Corporation vs Fulton Financial Corporation
FULT leads
FULT leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from FNB. Wall Street currently favors FNB on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support FULT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
F.N.B. Corporation
Fulton Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FULT over FNB, 55 versus 52 as of Sep 5, 2026. FULT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. FULT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FNB. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FULT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. FULT lead: Reversed — FNB led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FULT now leads by 3.
Compare F.N.B. Corporation and Fulton Financial Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FNB 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%57 vs 64FULT +7
- Momentum25%31 vs 36FULT +5
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 64Even
- Value30%58 vs 58Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor FULT. FULT’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 — FNB 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 momentum.
FNB (F.N.B. Corporation): the counter-case, on 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
FULTFULT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
FULTFULT on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
FULTFULT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FNBFNB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FULT, analyst targets favor FNB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FNB | FULT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.9% | +3.7% | FNB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.5% | +16% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 2 | 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
2 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 | Even | 52 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | FULTon balance | revenue growth 2.2% vs 11.6%; EPS growth 10.5% vs 2%; TTM ROE 8.9% vs 11.2%; gross margin 64.4% vs 69.3%; operating margin 26.5% vs 25.7% — FULT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 58 vs 58 |
| Technicals | FULT | Price vs 50-day -1.3% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 4% vs 10.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | FNB | Target upside 10.9% vs 3.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FNB and FULT 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 FULT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FULT lead: Reversed — FNB led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FULT now leads by 3.
- Today
- FULT +3
- 52 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- FULT +2
- 54 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- FNB +1
- 62 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 65 vs 65
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when FNB moved ahead of FULT.
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 (6.47%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, 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 +1.08%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.96%, 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.
- 1FNB closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to FULT's edge.
- 2FNB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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
FULT leads on balance| Metric | FNB | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.2% | 11.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10.5% | 2% |
| Gross margin | 64.4% | 69.3% |
| Operating margin | 26.5% | 25.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.9% | 11.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.73 | 0.45 |
Performance
FULT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FNB | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.7% | 8.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.3% | 15.4% |
| Year to date | 8% | 23.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.7% | 22.8% |
Technicals
FULT has the stronger structure| Metric | FNB | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.4 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 22.9 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.3% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 10.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.7% | 15.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FNB | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.83 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.55 | 1.12 |
| Max drawdown | -16.3% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -5.2% | -5.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.5% | 25.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FNB or FULT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FULT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 55 against FNB's 52. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 FNB or FULT the better buy right now?
FULT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FULT over FNB?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FULT leads Quality by 7 points; FULT leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FNB or FULT?
Analyst price targets imply +10.9% upside for FNB and +3.7% for FULT, so the Street currently favors FNB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FULT. 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, FNB or FULT?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, FNB or FULT?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, FNB or FULT?
FULT on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, FNB 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 FNB more profitable than FULT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 64.4% vs 69.3%; operating margin 26.5% vs 25.7%; ttm roe 8.9% vs 11.2%. FNB leads on one measure and FULT 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 FULT's lead over FNB getting stronger or weaker?
FULT lead: Reversed — FNB led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FULT now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when FNB moved ahead of FULT.
What would change the FNB vs FULT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FNB closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to FULT's edge; FNB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 FNB and FULT?
FNB: 2 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 FNB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FULT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FNB 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.