FNLC vs GBCI Stock Comparison
The First Bancorp, Inc. vs Glacier Bancorp, Inc.
FNLC leads
FNLC leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value.
Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support FNLC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The First Bancorp, Inc.
Glacier Bancorp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNLC over GBCI, 56 versus 44 as of Sep 5, 2026. FNLC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while GBCI holds the stronger risk resilience profile. FNLC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor FNLC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FNLC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The First Bancorp, Inc. and Glacier Bancorp, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FNLC 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.
- Momentum25%56 vs 25FNLC +31
- Value30%59 vs 36FNLC +23
- Risk Resilience15%51 vs 58GBCI +7
- Quality30%57 vs 60Even
3 of 5 evidence groups favor FNLC. FNLC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; GBCI 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 GBCI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNLC (The First Bancorp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
GBCI (Glacier Bancorp, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
FNLCFNLC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FNLCFNLC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNLCFNLC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
FNLCFNLC on the Momentum factor, by 31 points.
Lower downside
GBCIGBCI on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 | GBCI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +21.7% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +10.5% | 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
3 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 | FNLC | 56 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | GBCIon balance | revenue growth 13.7% vs -8.7%; EPS growth 6.2% vs 19%; TTM ROE 13.3% vs 7.6%; gross margin 54.4% vs 73.8%; operating margin 23.8% vs 24.7% — GBCI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FNLC | Value 59 vs 36 |
| Technicals | FNLC | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs -6%; vs 200-day 17.7% vs -2.5% |
| Risk Resilience | GBCI | Risk Resilience 51 vs 58 |
| 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 GBCI 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 wide at 12 points. (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)
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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FNLC +12
- 56 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- FNLC +15
- 58 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- FNLC +11
- 59 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- FNLC +4
- 60 vs 56
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.
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
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.82%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, 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 +1.01%, 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.
- 1GBCI closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNLC's edge.
- 2GBCI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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
GBCI leads on balance| Metric | FNLC | GBCI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.7% | -8.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 19% |
| Gross margin | 54.4% | 73.8% |
| Operating margin | 23.8% | 24.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.3% | 7.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.73 | 0.51 |
Performance
FNLC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FNLC | GBCI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.8% | -4.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.4% | -1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 26.6% | 4.6% |
| Year to date | 32.5% | 5.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 29.5% | -4.9% |
Technicals
FNLC has the stronger structure| Metric | FNLC | GBCI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44 | 24.6 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 26.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | -6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.7% | -2.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 19.9% |
Risk
GBCI is the more resilient| Metric | FNLC | GBCI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.28 | 0.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | -0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.68 | -0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -12.6% | -19.9% |
| Current drawdown | -1.8% | -14.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 28.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FNLC or GBCI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FNLC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against GBCI's 44. The edge comes from momentum and value. GBCI 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 GBCI the better buy right now?
FNLC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 5 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 FNLC over GBCI?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FNLC leads Momentum by 31 points; FNLC leads Value by 23 points; GBCI leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FNLC or GBCI?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for FNLC and +21.7% for 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, FNLC or GBCI?
FNLC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FNLC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, FNLC or GBCI?
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 GBCI?
FNLC on the Momentum factor, by 31 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 GBCI?
GBCI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GBCI on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 GBCI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.4% vs 73.8%; operating margin 23.8% vs 24.7%; ttm roe 13.3% vs 7.6%. FNLC leads on one measure and GBCI 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 GBCI getting stronger or weaker?
FNLC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 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 FNLC vs GBCI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GBCI closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNLC's edge; GBCI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 GBCI?
FNLC: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GBCI: 2 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 GBCI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FNLC and GBCI 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.