NTRS vs PB Stock Comparison
PB currently leads NTRS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum, while NTRS has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between NTRS and PB?
PB leads the current stock comparison as Prosperity Bancshares, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Northern Trust Corporation vs Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.
PB leads
PB leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from NTRS.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PB, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Northern Trust Corporation
Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PB over NTRS, 54 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. PB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while NTRS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. PB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. PB lead: Reversed — NTRS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PB now leads by 3.
Compare Northern Trust Corporation and Prosperity Bancshares, 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 NTRS and PB 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.
- Momentum39 vs 54PB +15
- Risk Resilience77 vs 64NTRS +13
- Quality56 vs 62PB +6
- Value42 vs 42Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PB. PB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; NTRS keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
PB's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NTRS and PB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PB (Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
NTRS (Northern Trust Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
PBPB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PBPB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
PBPB on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
NTRSNTRS on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
PBPB 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 | NTRS | PB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.3% | +14.5% | PB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +13.2% | +19.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | NTRS | PB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.06% | 4.59% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.800 | $1.870 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.100 | $2.340 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #327 | #261 |
PB grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.59% a year against NTRS's 2.06%. 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 PB. 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 | 51 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | PBon balance | revenue growth 11.3% vs 29.1%; EPS growth 56.2% vs 44%; TTM ROE 17.1% vs 7.1%; gross margin 59.8% vs 72.7%; operating margin 19.8% vs 40.5% — PB takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 42 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -6.6% vs -2.9%; vs 200-day 0.6% vs -3% |
| Risk Resilience | NTRS | Risk Resilience 77 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | PB | Target upside 9.3% vs 14.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NTRS and PB 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 3 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 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 PB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PB lead: Reversed — NTRS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PB now leads by 3.
- Today
- PB +3
- 51 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- PB +2
- 49 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- NTRS +1
- 48 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- NTRS +3
- 62 vs 59
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when PB moved ahead of NTRS.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only NTRS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.62%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.35%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
PB 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.89%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.19%, 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.
- 1NTRS closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to PB's edge.
- 2NTRS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 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
PB leads on balance| Metric | NTRS | PB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.3% | 29.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 56.2% | 44% |
| Gross margin | 59.8% | 72.7% |
| Operating margin | 19.8% | 40.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.1% | 7.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.18 | 0.32 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | NTRS | PB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | 2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.6% | -0.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | -6.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.5% | -1.9% |
| Year to date | 21.1% | -1.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 32.8% | 10.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | NTRS | PB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.5 | 64 |
| ADX (14) | 38.1 | 29.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.6% | -2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.6% | -3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17% | 16% |
Risk
NTRS is the more resilient| Metric | NTRS | PB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.91 | 0.39 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.11 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.77 | 0.38 |
| Max drawdown | -15.1% | -15.7% |
| Current drawdown | -13.6% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.6% | 20.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NTRS or PB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 54 against NTRS's 51. The edge comes from momentum and quality. NTRS 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 NTRS or PB the better buy right now?
PB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PB over NTRS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PB leads Momentum by 15 points; NTRS leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; PB leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NTRS or PB?
Analyst price targets imply +9.3% upside for NTRS and +14.5% for PB, so the Street currently favors PB. 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, NTRS or PB?
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, NTRS or PB?
PB 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, NTRS or PB?
PB on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, NTRS or PB?
NTRS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NTRS 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 NTRS more profitable than PB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 59.8% vs 72.7%; operating margin 19.8% vs 40.5%; ttm roe 17.1% vs 7.1%. NTRS leads on one measure and PB 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 PB's lead over NTRS getting stronger or weaker?
PB lead: Reversed — NTRS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PB now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when PB moved ahead of NTRS.
What would change the NTRS vs PB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NTRS closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to PB's edge; NTRS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; PB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; 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 NTRS and PB?
NTRS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PB: 1 bullish / 3 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 NTRS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PB it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NTRS and PB 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.