MTB vs RF Stock Comparison
Compare MTB vs RF on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between MTB and RF?
MTB and RF are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
M&T Bank Corporation vs Regions Financial Corporation
MTB and RF are effectively level
MTB and RF are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
M&T Bank Corporation
Regions Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate MTB and RF as of Oct 22, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare M&T Bank Corporation and Regions Financial 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 MTB and RF 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.
- Risk Resilience77 vs 64MTB +13
- Momentum45 vs 54RF +9
- Quality67 vs 64Even
- Value55 vs 56Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +7
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTB and RF both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
RFRF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
RFRF on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
MTBMTB 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 | MTB | RF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.9% | +17.9% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +34.4% | +24.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MTB | RF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.31% | 10.69% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.400 | $0.620 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.700 | $1.030 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #237 | #87 |
RF grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.69% 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | RF | revenue growth 1.5% vs 3.4%; EPS growth -2.9% vs 12.5%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 12.3%; gross margin 71% vs 77.8%; operating margin 30.8% vs 30.6% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 55 vs 56 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -4.9% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day -2.8% vs -2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | MTB | Risk Resilience 77 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 17.9% vs 17.9% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20RF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- RF +2
- 53 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- RF +3
- 48 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- RF +5
- 58 vs 63
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when MTB moved ahead of RF.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only RF
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, 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 +0.72%, AIQ +2 points).
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
RF leads on balance| Metric | MTB | RF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.5% | 3.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -2.9% | 12.5% |
| Gross margin | 71% | 77.8% |
| Operating margin | 30.8% | 30.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 12.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.59 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MTB | RF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | 3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.3% | -0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -12.9% | -9.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.3% | -1.8% |
| Year to date | 8.4% | 2.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.2% | 19.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | MTB | RF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.5 | 64.7 |
| ADX (14) | 33.3 | 31.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.9% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.8% | -2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 18.5% |
Risk
MTB is the more resilient| Metric | MTB | RF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.67 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.25 | 0.95 |
| Max drawdown | -17.6% | -19.2% |
| Current drawdown | -14.1% | -14% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 23.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, MTB or RF?
Analyst price targets imply +17.9% upside for MTB and +17.9% for RF. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, MTB or RF?
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 RF?
RF 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 RF?
RF on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, MTB or RF?
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 RF?
RF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 71% vs 77.8%; operating margin 30.8% vs 30.6%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 12.3%.
What do the current signals say about MTB and RF?
MTB: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. RF: 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 MTB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MTB and RF 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.