MTB vs PNC Stock Comparison
MTB currently leads PNC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 52. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between MTB and PNC?
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
M&T Bank Corporation vs The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
MTB leads
MTB leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors PNC on target upside.
Competitive: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MTB, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
M&T Bank Corporation
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTB over PNC, 59 versus 52 as of Oct 22, 2026. MTB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. MTB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PNC. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTB today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MTB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare M&T Bank Corporation and The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. 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 MTB and PNC 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.
- Quality67 vs 53MTB +14
- Risk Resilience77 vs 64MTB +13
- Momentum45 vs 42Even
- Value55 vs 53Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MTB. MTB’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 +10
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
MTB's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTB and PNC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTB (M&T Bank Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
PNC (The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.): 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
MTBMTB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PNCPNC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MTBMTB on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
PNCPNC 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 PNC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MTB | PNC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.9% | +22.4% | PNC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.4% | +23.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 15 | 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 | MTB | PNC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.31% | 7.49% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.400 | $4.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.700 | $6.600 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #237 | #166 |
PNC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.49% a year against MTB's 5.31%. 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 | MTB | 59 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | PNCon balance | revenue growth 1.5% vs 3.8%; EPS growth -2.9% vs 3.5%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 12.6%; gross margin 71% vs 68.6%; operating margin 30.8% vs 27.2% — PNC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 55 vs 53 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -4.9% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day -2.8% vs -3.3% |
| Risk Resilience | MTB | Risk Resilience 77 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | PNC | Target upside 17.9% vs 22.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MTB and PNC 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MTB +7
- 59 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- MTB +5
- 53 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- MTB +1
- 48 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- PNC +1
- 58 vs 59
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when PNC moved ahead of MTB.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only MTB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 +0.53%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.86%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1PNC closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTB's edge.
- 2PNC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 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
PNC leads on balance| Metric | MTB | PNC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.5% | 3.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -2.9% | 3.5% |
| Gross margin | 71% | 68.6% |
| Operating margin | 30.8% | 27.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 12.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 1.28 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MTB | PNC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.3% | -3.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -12.9% | -12.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.3% | -3.1% |
| Year to date | 8.4% | 5.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.2% | 23.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | MTB | PNC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.5 | 47.4 |
| ADX (14) | 33.3 | 39.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.9% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.8% | -3.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 15.9% |
Risk
MTB is the more resilient| Metric | MTB | PNC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.25 | 1.31 |
| Max drawdown | -17.6% | -17.2% |
| Current drawdown | -14.1% | -14% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 21.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MTB or PNC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MTB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 59 against PNC's 52. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 MTB or PNC the better buy right now?
MTB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 of 6 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 MTB over PNC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MTB leads Quality by 14 points; MTB leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MTB or PNC?
Analyst price targets imply +17.9% upside for MTB and +22.4% for PNC, so the Street currently favors PNC. 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, MTB or PNC?
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, MTB or PNC?
PNC 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, MTB or PNC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, MTB or PNC?
MTB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MTB on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 MTB more profitable than PNC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 71% vs 68.6%; operating margin 30.8% vs 27.2%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 12.6%. MTB leads on two measures and PNC 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 MTB's lead over PNC getting stronger or weaker?
MTB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when PNC moved ahead of MTB.
What would change the MTB vs PNC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PNC closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTB's edge; PNC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; 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 MTB and PNC?
MTB: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. PNC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on MTB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PNC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MTB and PNC 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.