HBAN vs MTB Stock Comparison
MTB currently leads HBAN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 57. The clearest difference is quality, while HBAN has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between HBAN and MTB?
MTB leads the current stock comparison as M&T Bank Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated vs M&T Bank Corporation
MTB leads
MTB leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from HBAN. Wall Street currently favors HBAN on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MTB, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated
M&T Bank Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTB over HBAN, 59 versus 57 as of Oct 22, 2026. MTB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while HBAN holds the stronger momentum profile. MTB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HBAN. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. MTB lead: Reversed — HBAN led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTB now leads by 2.
Compare Huntington Bancshares Incorporated and M&T Bank Corporation 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 HBAN and MTB 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.
- Quality57 vs 67MTB +10
- Momentum49 vs 45HBAN +4
- Risk Resilience81 vs 77HBAN +4
- Value53 vs 55Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MTB. MTB’s edge is concentrated in quality; HBAN keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
MTB's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HBAN and MTB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTB (M&T Bank Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
HBAN (Huntington Bancshares Incorporated): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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
MTBMTB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HBANHBAN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
HBANHBAN on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
HBANHBAN on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
HBANHBAN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MTB, analyst targets favor HBAN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HBAN | MTB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.7% | +17.9% | HBAN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.9% | +34.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 13 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | HBAN | MTB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 0.66% | 5.31% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.600 | $4.400 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.620 | $5.700 |
| Years increased | 2 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #346 | #237 |
MTB grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 5.31% a year against HBAN's 0.66%. 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 MTB. 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 | 57 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | MTBon balance | revenue growth 10.6% vs 1.5%; EPS growth 46.2% vs -2.9%; TTM ROE 8.6% vs 10.7%; gross margin 63.7% vs 71%; operating margin 20.4% vs 30.8% — MTB takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 53 vs 55 |
| Technicals | MTB | Price vs 50-day -3.3% vs -4.9%; vs 200-day -7.4% vs -2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | HBAN | Risk Resilience 81 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | HBAN | Target upside 27.7% vs 17.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HBAN and MTB 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 2 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'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 MTB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MTB lead: Reversed — HBAN led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTB now leads by 2.
- Today
- MTB +2
- 57 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- HBAN +1
- 54 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- HBAN +3
- 51 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- HBAN +6
- 64 vs 58
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when MTB moved ahead of HBAN.
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only HBAN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.19%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only MTB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.74%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
HBAN 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.16%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.53%, 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.
- 1HBAN closes the Quality gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTB's edge.
- 2HBAN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MTB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
MTB leads on balance| Metric | HBAN | MTB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.6% | 1.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 46.2% | -2.9% |
| Gross margin | 63.7% | 71% |
| Operating margin | 20.4% | 30.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.6% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.67 | 0.23 |
Performance
MTB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HBAN | MTB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1% | -2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.9% | -12.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.4% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | -10.4% | 8.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.1% | 22.2% |
Technicals
MTB has the stronger structure| Metric | HBAN | MTB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58 | 51.5 |
| ADX (14) | 33 | 33.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.3% | -4.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.4% | -2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.9% | 16.2% |
Risk
HBAN is the more resilient| Metric | HBAN | MTB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.78 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.01 | 0.82 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.01 | 1.25 |
| Max drawdown | -22.1% | -17.6% |
| Current drawdown | -19.4% | -14.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.1% | 21.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HBAN or MTB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MTB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 59 against HBAN's 57. The edge comes from quality. HBAN is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 HBAN or MTB the better buy right now?
MTB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MTB over HBAN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MTB leads Quality by 10 points; HBAN leads Momentum by 4 points; HBAN leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HBAN or MTB?
Analyst price targets imply +27.7% upside for HBAN and +17.9% for MTB, so the Street currently favors HBAN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MTB. 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, HBAN or MTB?
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, HBAN or MTB?
HBAN 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, HBAN or MTB?
HBAN on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, HBAN or MTB?
HBAN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HBAN on Risk Resilience, by 4 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is HBAN more profitable than MTB?
MTB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.7% vs 71%; operating margin 20.4% vs 30.8%; ttm roe 8.6% vs 10.7%.
Is MTB's lead over HBAN getting stronger or weaker?
MTB lead: Reversed — HBAN led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTB now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-10-17, when MTB moved ahead of HBAN.
What would change the HBAN vs MTB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HBAN closes the Quality gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTB's edge; HBAN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MTB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 HBAN and MTB?
HBAN: 1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. MTB: 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 HBAN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MTB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HBAN and MTB 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.