FNLC vs FULT Stock Comparison
The First Bancorp, Inc. vs Fulton Financial Corporation
FNLC leads
FNLC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from FULT.
Fragile: 2 of 5 evidence groups support FNLC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The First Bancorp, Inc.
Fulton Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNLC over FULT, 56 versus 55 as of Sep 5, 2026. FNLC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while FULT holds the stronger risk resilience profile. FNLC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor FNLC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. FNLC lead: Reversed — FULT led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FNLC now leads by 1.
Compare The First Bancorp, Inc. and Fulton Financial Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FNLC 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.
- Momentum25%56 vs 36FNLC +20
- Risk Resilience15%51 vs 64FULT +13
- Quality30%57 vs 64FULT +7
- Value30%59 vs 58Even
2 of 5 evidence groups favor FNLC. FNLC’s edge is concentrated in momentum; FULT keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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.
FNLC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FNLC and FULT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNLC (The First Bancorp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
FULT (Fulton Financial Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality.
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
FNLCFNLC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FNLCFNLC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
FNLCFNLC on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
FULTFULT on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | FNLC | FULT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +3.7% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +16% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 0 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor FNLC. 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 | 56 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | FNLCon balance | revenue growth 13.7% vs 11.6%; EPS growth 6.2% vs 2%; TTM ROE 13.3% vs 11.2%; gross margin 54.4% vs 69.3%; operating margin 23.8% vs 25.7% — FNLC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 59 vs 58 |
| Technicals | FNLC | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 17.7% vs 10.5% |
| Risk Resilience | FULT | Risk Resilience 51 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FNLC 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 5 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 FNLC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FNLC lead: Reversed — FULT led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FNLC now leads by 1.
- Today
- FNLC +1
- 56 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- FNLC +2
- 58 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- FULT +2
- 59 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- FULT +5
- 60 vs 65
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when FNLC 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 (16.79%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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
FNLC 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 +0.31%, 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.
- 1FULT closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNLC's edge.
- 2FULT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FNLC'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
FNLC leads on balance| Metric | FNLC | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.7% | 11.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 2% |
| Gross margin | 54.4% | 69.3% |
| Operating margin | 23.8% | 25.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.3% | 11.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.73 | 0.45 |
Performance
FNLC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FNLC | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.8% | -2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.4% | 8.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 26.6% | 15.4% |
| Year to date | 32.5% | 23.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 29.5% | 22.8% |
Technicals
FNLC has the stronger structure| Metric | FNLC | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.7% | 10.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 15.7% |
Risk
FULT is the more resilient| Metric | FNLC | FULT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.28 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | 0.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.68 | 1.12 |
| Max drawdown | -12.6% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -1.8% | -5.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 25.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FNLC or FULT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FNLC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against FULT's 55. The edge comes from momentum. FULT is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 FNLC or FULT the better buy right now?
FNLC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FNLC over FULT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FNLC leads Momentum by 20 points; FULT leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; FULT leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FNLC or FULT?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for FNLC and +3.7% for 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, FNLC 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, FNLC or FULT?
FNLC 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, FNLC or FULT?
FNLC on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, FNLC or FULT?
FULT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FULT on Risk Resilience, by 13 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FNLC more profitable than FULT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.4% vs 69.3%; operating margin 23.8% vs 25.7%; ttm roe 13.3% vs 11.2%. FNLC 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 FNLC's lead over FULT getting stronger or weaker?
FNLC lead: Reversed — FULT led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FNLC now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when FNLC moved ahead of FULT.
What would change the FNLC vs FULT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FULT closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNLC's edge; FULT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; FNLC'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 FNLC and FULT?
FNLC: 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 FNLC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FULT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FNLC 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.