PB vs SFNC Stock Comparison
SFNC currently leads PB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 54. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between PB and SFNC?
SFNC leads the current stock comparison as Simmons First National Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. vs Simmons First National Corporation
SFNC leads
SFNC leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from PB. Wall Street currently favors PB on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support SFNC, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.
Simmons First National Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SFNC over PB, 56 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. SFNC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value. SFNC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PB. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SFNC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. SFNC lead: Reversed — PB led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SFNC now leads by 2.
Compare Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. and Simmons First National 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 PB and SFNC 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.
- Value42 vs 55SFNC +13
- Quality62 vs 59Even
- Momentum54 vs 51Even
- Risk Resilience64 vs 63Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor SFNC. SFNC’s edge is concentrated in value.
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 +9
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
SFNC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PB and SFNC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SFNC (Simmons First National Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
PB (Prosperity Bancshares, 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
SFNCSFNC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PBPB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SFNCSFNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
PBPB carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
PBPB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SFNC, analyst targets favor PB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PB | SFNC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.5% | +11.4% | PB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +19.2% | +13.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 3 | 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 | PB | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.59% | 4.56% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.870 | $0.680 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.340 | $0.850 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #261 | #262 |
PB grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.59% a year against SFNC's 4.56%. 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 SFNC. 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 | 54 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | PBon balance | EPS growth 44% vs -28.3%; TTM ROE 7.1% vs 7.6%; gross margin 72.7% vs 65.6%; operating margin 40.5% vs 21.2% — PB takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SFNC | Value 42 vs 55 |
| Technicals | SFNC | Price vs 50-day -2.9% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day -3% vs 5.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 64 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | PB | Target upside 14.5% vs 11.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PB and SFNC 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 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 SFNC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SFNC lead: Reversed — PB led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SFNC now leads by 2.
- Today
- SFNC +2
- 54 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- PB +8
- 51 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- PB +2
- 47 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- PB +7
- 59 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when SFNC moved ahead of PB.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PB
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.35%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only SFNC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.04%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
PB 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.19%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.53%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1PB closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to SFNC's edge.
- 2PB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SFNC'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
PB leads on balance| Metric | PB | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 29.1% | 0.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 44% | -28.3% |
| Gross margin | 72.7% | 65.6% |
| Operating margin | 40.5% | 21.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.1% | 7.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.32 | 0.53 |
Performance
SFNC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PB | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.9% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.6% | -1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.9% | 7.3% |
| Year to date | -1.2% | 20.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.3% | 26.4% |
Technicals
SFNC has the stronger structure| Metric | PB | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64 | 53.2 |
| ADX (14) | 29.5 | 19.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.9% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3% | 5.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16% | 18.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PB | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.39 | 0.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 0.85 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.38 | 1.25 |
| Max drawdown | -15.7% | -14.9% |
| Current drawdown | -10.2% | -5.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.9% | 25% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PB or SFNC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SFNC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against PB's 54. The edge comes from value. 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 PB or SFNC the better buy right now?
SFNC 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SFNC over PB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SFNC leads Value by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PB or SFNC?
Analyst price targets imply +14.5% upside for PB and +11.4% for SFNC, so the Street currently favors PB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SFNC. 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, PB or SFNC?
SFNC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SFNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points. 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, PB or SFNC?
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, PB or SFNC?
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, PB or SFNC?
PB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PB carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PB more profitable than SFNC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 72.7% vs 65.6%; operating margin 40.5% vs 21.2%; ttm roe 7.1% vs 7.6%. PB leads on two measures and SFNC 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 SFNC's lead over PB getting stronger or weaker?
SFNC lead: Reversed — PB led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SFNC 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-17, when SFNC moved ahead of PB.
What would change the PB vs SFNC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PB closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to SFNC's edge; PB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SFNC'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 PB and SFNC?
PB: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SFNC: 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 PB is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SFNC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PB and SFNC 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.