SFNC vs TBBK Stock Comparison
TBBK currently leads SFNC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 56. The clearest difference is quality, while SFNC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between SFNC and TBBK?
TBBK leads the current stock comparison as The Bancorp, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Simmons First National Corporation vs The Bancorp, Inc.
TBBK leads
TBBK leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support TBBK, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Simmons First National Corporation
The Bancorp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TBBK over SFNC, 57 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. TBBK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while SFNC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TBBK also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TBBK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TBBK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Simmons First National Corporation and The Bancorp, 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 SFNC and TBBK 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.
- Quality59 vs 72TBBK +13
- Risk Resilience63 vs 52SFNC +11
- Value55 vs 46SFNC +9
- Momentum51 vs 55TBBK +4
2 of 6 evidence groups favor TBBK. TBBK’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; SFNC 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
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
TBBK's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SFNC and TBBK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TBBK (The Bancorp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
SFNC (Simmons First National Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
TBBKTBBK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TBBKTBBK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SFNCSFNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
TBBKTBBK on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
SFNCSFNC on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
TBBKTBBK 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 | SFNC | TBBK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.4% | +53.8% | TBBK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +13.7% | +45.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Strong Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TBBK. 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 | 56 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | TBBK | EPS growth -28.3% vs 2.1%; TTM ROE 7.6% vs 32.3%; gross margin 65.6% vs 70.4%; operating margin 21.2% vs 40.7% |
| Valuation | SFNC | Value 55 vs 46 |
| Technicals | SFNC | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs -11.8%; vs 200-day 5.6% vs -14.6% |
| Risk Resilience | SFNC | Risk Resilience 63 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | TBBK | Target upside 11.4% vs 53.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SFNC and TBBK 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 TBBK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TBBK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TBBK +1
- 56 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- TBBK +10
- 43 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- TBBK +5
- 45 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- TBBK +6
- 52 vs 58
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only SFNC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.04%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TBBK
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.74%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
TBBK 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 +0.53%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.34%, 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.
- 1SFNC closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to TBBK's edge.
- 2SFNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TBBK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TBBK'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
TBBK leads on balance| Metric | SFNC | TBBK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.2% | 24.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -28.3% | 2.1% |
| Gross margin | 65.6% | 70.4% |
| Operating margin | 21.2% | 40.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.6% | 32.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.53 | 1.36 |
Performance
SFNC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SFNC | TBBK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.8% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.2% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.5% | -23.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.3% | -15.6% |
| Year to date | 20.8% | -25% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | -29.4% |
Technicals
SFNC has the stronger structure| Metric | SFNC | TBBK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.2 | 62.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.6 | 38 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | -11.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.6% | -14.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.1% | 26.4% |
Risk
SFNC is the more resilient| Metric | SFNC | TBBK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.61 | 1.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | -0.6 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.25 | -0.58 |
| Max drawdown | -14.9% | -39.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.6% | -36.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 45.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SFNC or TBBK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TBBK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against SFNC's 56. The edge comes from quality and momentum. SFNC 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 SFNC or TBBK the better buy right now?
TBBK 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TBBK over SFNC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TBBK leads Quality by 13 points; SFNC leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; SFNC leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SFNC or TBBK?
Analyst price targets imply +11.4% upside for SFNC and +53.8% for TBBK, so the Street currently favors TBBK. 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, SFNC or TBBK?
SFNC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SFNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, SFNC or TBBK?
TBBK 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, SFNC or TBBK?
TBBK on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, SFNC or TBBK?
SFNC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SFNC on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 SFNC more profitable than TBBK?
TBBK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 65.6% vs 70.4%; operating margin 21.2% vs 40.7%; ttm roe 7.6% vs 32.3%.
Is TBBK's lead over SFNC getting stronger or weaker?
TBBK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the SFNC vs TBBK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SFNC closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to TBBK's edge; SFNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TBBK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TBBK's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SFNC and TBBK?
SFNC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. TBBK: 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 SFNC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TBBK it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SFNC and TBBK 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.