SFNC vs UMBF Stock Comparison
Simmons First National Corporation vs UMB Financial Corporation
UMBF leads
UMBF leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support UMBF, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Simmons First National Corporation
UMB Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UMBF over SFNC, 53 versus 50 as of Sep 5, 2026. UMBF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while SFNC holds the stronger momentum profile. UMBF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UMBF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. UMBF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Simmons First National Corporation and UMB Financial Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare SFNC and UMBF 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.
- Quality30%30 vs 62UMBF +32
- Momentum25%59 vs 31SFNC +28
- Risk Resilience15%82 vs 60SFNC +22
- Value30%45 vs 58UMBF +13
3 of 6 evidence groups favor UMBF. UMBF’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; 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 +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
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
UMBF's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SFNC and UMBF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UMBF (UMB Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
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
UMBFUMBF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
UMBFUMBF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UMBFUMBF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
SFNCSFNC on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
SFNCSFNC on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
UMBFUMBF 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 | UMBF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.1% | +11.6% | UMBF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +4.1% | +26.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 9 | 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 UMBF. 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 | 50 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | UMBF | revenue growth 17.8% vs 28.8%; EPS growth -2.1% vs 6.5%; TTM ROE -10.2% vs 12.2%; gross margin 13.5% vs 58.5%; operating margin -85.9% vs 22.1% |
| Valuation | UMBF | Value 45 vs 58 |
| Technicals | SFNC | Price vs 50-day 2.3% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day 12.9% vs 12.4% |
| Risk Resilience | SFNC | Risk Resilience 82 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | UMBF | Target upside 4.1% vs 11.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SFNC and UMBF 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 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 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 UMBF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4UMBF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UMBF +3
- 50 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- UMBF +12
- 43 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- UMBF +11
- 53 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- UMBF +11
- 53 vs 64
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.
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%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.36%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
UMBF 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 +3.09%, AIQ +7 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.22%, 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.
- 1SFNC closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to UMBF's edge.
- 2SFNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3UMBF'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 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate UMBF'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
UMBF leads on balance| Metric | SFNC | UMBF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.8% | 28.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -2.1% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | 13.5% | 58.5% |
| Operating margin | -85.9% | 22.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.2% | 12.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.37 | 0.44 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | SFNC | UMBF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.4% | -0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1% | -1.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.8% | 10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 21.9% | 26.2% |
| Year to date | 25.7% | 25% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.5% | 18.4% |
Technicals
SFNC has the stronger structure| Metric | SFNC | UMBF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.4 | 31.6 |
| ADX (14) | 22.6 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.3% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.9% | 12.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.9% | 21.5% |
Risk
SFNC is the more resilient| Metric | SFNC | UMBF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.41 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.6 | 0.76 |
| Max drawdown | -18.4% | -18.9% |
| Current drawdown | -1.8% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.2% | 26.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SFNC or UMBF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UMBF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 53 against SFNC's 50. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 SFNC or UMBF the better buy right now?
UMBF 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UMBF over SFNC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. UMBF leads Quality by 32 points; SFNC leads Momentum by 28 points; SFNC leads Risk Resilience by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SFNC or UMBF?
Analyst price targets imply +4.1% upside for SFNC and +11.6% for UMBF, so the Street currently favors UMBF. 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 UMBF?
UMBF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UMBF 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, SFNC or UMBF?
UMBF 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 UMBF?
SFNC on the Momentum factor, by 28 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, SFNC or UMBF?
SFNC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SFNC on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 SFNC more profitable than UMBF?
UMBF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 13.5% vs 58.5%; operating margin -85.9% vs 22.1%; ttm roe -10.2% vs 12.2%.
Is UMBF's lead over SFNC getting stronger or weaker?
UMBF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 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 SFNC vs UMBF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SFNC closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to UMBF's edge; SFNC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; UMBF'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 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate UMBF's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SFNC and UMBF?
SFNC: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. UMBF: 1 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 SFNC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UMBF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SFNC and UMBF 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.