PFS vs SFNC Stock Comparison
Provident Financial Services, Inc. vs Simmons First National Corporation
PFS leads
PFS leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support PFS, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Provident Financial Services, Inc.
Simmons First National Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PFS over SFNC, 51 versus 50 as of Sep 5, 2026. PFS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while SFNC holds the stronger momentum profile. PFS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. PFS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Provident Financial Services, Inc. and Simmons First National Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare PFS 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.
- Momentum25%34 vs 59SFNC +25
- Value30%61 vs 45PFS +16
- Quality30%45 vs 30PFS +15
- Risk Resilience15%72 vs 82SFNC +10
3 of 6 evidence groups favor PFS. PFS’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; SFNC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +27
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
PFS's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PFS and SFNC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PFS (Provident Financial Services, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
SFNC (Simmons First National Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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
PFSPFS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
SFNCSFNC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFSPFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
SFNCSFNC on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
SFNCSFNC on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
PFSPFS 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 | PFS | SFNC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.7% | +4.1% | PFS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +3.8% | +4.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFS. 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 50 |
| Fundamentals | PFSon balance | revenue growth -5.7% vs 17.8%; EPS growth -1.6% vs -2.1%; TTM ROE 11% vs -10.2%; gross margin 63.2% vs 13.5%; operating margin 28.8% vs -85.9% — PFS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PFS | Value 61 vs 45 |
| Technicals | SFNC | Price vs 50-day -1.1% vs 2.3%; vs 200-day 7.3% vs 12.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SFNC | Risk Resilience 72 vs 82 |
| Analyst expectations | PFS | Target upside 11.7% vs 4.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PFS 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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)
- 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 PFS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4PFS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PFS +1
- 51 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- PFS +11
- 54 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- PFS +11
- 64 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- PFS +10
- 63 vs 53
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.49%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.36%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
PFS 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 +0.68%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +3.09%, AIQ +7 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.
- 1SFNC closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFS's edge.
- 2SFNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3PFS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate PFS's advantage entirely.
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
PFS leads on balance| Metric | PFS | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -5.7% | 17.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -1.6% | -2.1% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 13.5% |
| Operating margin | 28.8% | -85.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11% | -10.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.65 | 0.37 |
Performance
SFNC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PFS | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | 4.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3% | 1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.4% | 9.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 13.4% | 21.9% |
| Year to date | 20.1% | 25.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.5% | 13.5% |
Technicals
SFNC has the stronger structure| Metric | PFS | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.2 | 46.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.8 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.1% | 2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.3% | 12.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.4% | 19.9% |
Risk
SFNC is the more resilient| Metric | PFS | SFNC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.65 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 0.6 |
| Max drawdown | -15.4% | -18.4% |
| Current drawdown | -6.2% | -1.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.4% | 26.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PFS or SFNC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PFS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 51 against SFNC's 50. The edge comes from value and quality. SFNC is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 PFS or SFNC the better buy right now?
PFS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PFS over SFNC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SFNC leads Momentum by 25 points; PFS leads Value by 16 points; PFS leads Quality by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PFS or SFNC?
Analyst price targets imply +11.7% upside for PFS and +4.1% for SFNC, so the Street currently favors PFS. 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, PFS or SFNC?
PFS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, PFS or SFNC?
SFNC 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, PFS or SFNC?
SFNC on the Momentum factor, by 25 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, PFS or SFNC?
SFNC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SFNC on Risk Resilience, by 10 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PFS more profitable than SFNC?
PFS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 13.5%; operating margin 28.8% vs -85.9%; ttm roe 11% vs -10.2%.
Is PFS's lead over SFNC getting stronger or weaker?
PFS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the PFS vs SFNC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SFNC closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFS's edge; SFNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; PFS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate PFS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about PFS and SFNC?
PFS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SFNC: 4 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 PFS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SFNC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PFS and SFNC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.