FNB vs HAFC Stock Comparison
F.N.B. Corporation vs Hanmi Financial Corporation
HAFC leads
HAFC leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors FNB on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support HAFC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
F.N.B. Corporation
Hanmi Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HAFC over FNB, 56 versus 52 as of Sep 5, 2026. HAFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. HAFC 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 HAFC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. HAFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare F.N.B. Corporation and Hanmi Financial Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FNB and HAFC 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.
- Momentum25%31 vs 40HAFC +9
- Quality30%57 vs 64HAFC +7
- Value30%58 vs 58Even
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 62Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor HAFC. HAFC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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.
HAFC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FNB and HAFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HAFC (Hanmi Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
FNB (F.N.B. Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, 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
HAFCHAFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FNBFNB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
HAFCHAFC on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
HAFCHAFC 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 HAFC, analyst targets favor FNB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FNB | HAFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.9% | +5% | FNB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.5% | +8.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 3 | 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 HAFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HAFC | 52 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | FNBon balance | revenue growth 2.2% vs -45.6%; EPS growth 10.5% vs 2.6%; TTM ROE 8.9% vs 11.2%; gross margin 64.4% vs 56.4%; operating margin 26.5% vs 17.3% — FNB takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 58 vs 58 |
| Technicals | HAFC | Price vs 50-day -1.3% vs 0.4%; vs 200-day 4% vs 9.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | FNB | Target upside 10.9% vs 5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FNB and HAFC 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 HAFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4HAFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HAFC +4
- 52 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- HAFC +2
- 54 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- HAFC +2
- 62 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 65 vs 65
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when HAFC moved ahead of FNB.
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
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.68%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
FNB is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.69%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAFC's edge.
- 2FNB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3HAFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
FNB leads on balance| Metric | FNB | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.2% | -45.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10.5% | 2.6% |
| Gross margin | 64.4% | 56.4% |
| Operating margin | 26.5% | 17.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.9% | 11.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.73 | 0.16 |
Performance
HAFC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FNB | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.7% | 4.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.3% | 22.1% |
| Year to date | 8% | 17.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.7% | 28.1% |
Technicals
HAFC has the stronger structure| Metric | FNB | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.4 | 40.5 |
| ADX (14) | 22.9 | 15.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.3% | 0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 9.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.7% | 16.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FNB | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.83 | 0.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.55 | 1.08 |
| Max drawdown | -16.3% | -16.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.2% | -4.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.5% | 30.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FNB or HAFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HAFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against FNB's 52. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 HAFC the better buy right now?
HAFC 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HAFC over FNB?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. HAFC leads Momentum by 9 points; HAFC leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FNB or HAFC?
Analyst price targets imply +10.9% upside for FNB and +5% for HAFC, so the Street currently favors FNB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HAFC. 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 HAFC?
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 HAFC?
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, FNB or HAFC?
HAFC on the Momentum factor, by 9 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 HAFC?
HAFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HAFC 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 HAFC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 64.4% vs 56.4%; operating margin 26.5% vs 17.3%; ttm roe 8.9% vs 11.2%. FNB leads on two measures and HAFC 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 HAFC's lead over FNB getting stronger or weaker?
HAFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when HAFC moved ahead of FNB.
What would change the FNB vs HAFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FNB closes the Momentum gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAFC's edge; FNB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; HAFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 HAFC?
FNB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HAFC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 HAFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FNB and HAFC 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.