MTB vs STT Stock Comparison
MTB currently leads STT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 52. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between MTB and STT?
MTB leads the current stock comparison as M&T Bank Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
M&T Bank Corporation vs State Street Corporation
MTB leads
MTB leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from STT.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MTB, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
M&T Bank Corporation
State Street Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTB over STT, 59 versus 52 as of Oct 22, 2026. MTB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. MTB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. MTB lead: Reversed — STT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTB now leads by 7.
Compare M&T Bank Corporation and State Street 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 STT 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.
- Momentum45 vs 29MTB +16
- Quality67 vs 59MTB +8
- Risk Resilience77 vs 72MTB +5
- Value55 vs 53Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MTB. MTB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
MTB's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTB and STT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTB (M&T Bank Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
STT (State Street Corporation): the counter-case, on technicals.
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
STTSTT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MTBMTB on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
MTBMTB on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
MTBMTB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | MTB | STT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.9% | +10.7% | MTB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.4% | +15.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | 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 | STT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.31% | 8.45% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.400 | $2.080 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.700 | $3.120 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #237 | not ranked |
STT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.45% a year against MTB's 5.31%. MTB never reduced its regular dividend in the window; STT did in 1 year.
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
4 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 | MTBon balance | revenue growth 1.5% vs 0.4%; EPS growth -2.9% vs 1.1%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 13.1%; gross margin 71% vs 66.4%; operating margin 30.8% vs 20% — MTB takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 55 vs 53 |
| Technicals | STT | Price vs 50-day -4.9% vs -7.8%; vs 200-day -2.8% vs 5.8% |
| Risk Resilience | MTB | Risk Resilience 77 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | MTB | Target upside 17.9% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MTB and STT 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 moderate at 7 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 — STT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTB now leads by 7.
- Today
- MTB +7
- 59 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- MTB +4
- 53 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- STT +1
- 48 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- STT +3
- 58 vs 61
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 23 when STT 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
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only STT
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
STT 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 +0.53%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.42%, 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.
- 1STT closes the Momentum gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTB's edge.
- 2STT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 | MTB | STT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.5% | 0.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -2.9% | 1.1% |
| Gross margin | 71% | 66.4% |
| Operating margin | 30.8% | 20% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 13.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.91 |
Performance
STT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MTB | STT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | -4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.3% | -7.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -12.9% | -9.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.3% | 8.5% |
| Year to date | 8.4% | 29.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.2% | 47.5% |
Technicals
STT has the stronger structure| Metric | MTB | STT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.5 | 26.6 |
| ADX (14) | 33.3 | 38.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.9% | -7.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.8% | 5.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 17.8% |
Risk
MTB is the more resilient| Metric | MTB | STT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 1.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 1.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.25 | 2.33 |
| Max drawdown | -17.6% | -14.8% |
| Current drawdown | -14.1% | -14.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 24.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MTB or STT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MTB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 59 against STT's 52. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 STT the better buy right now?
MTB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MTB over STT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MTB leads Momentum by 16 points; MTB leads Quality by 8 points; MTB leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MTB or STT?
Analyst price targets imply +17.9% upside for MTB and +10.7% for STT, so the Street currently favors MTB. 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, MTB or STT?
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 STT?
STT 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 STT?
MTB on the Momentum factor, by 16 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 STT?
MTB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MTB on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 STT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 71% vs 66.4%; operating margin 30.8% vs 20%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 13.1%. MTB leads on two measures and STT 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 STT getting stronger or weaker?
MTB lead: Reversed — STT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTB now leads by 7. 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 2026-09-23, when STT moved ahead of MTB.
What would change the MTB vs STT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: STT closes the Momentum gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTB's edge; STT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 MTB and STT?
MTB: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. STT: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 STT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MTB and STT 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.