TBBK vs TCBI Stock Comparison
The Bancorp, Inc. vs Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.
TCBI leads
TCBI leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value. Wall Street currently favors TBBK on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support TCBI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Bancorp, Inc.
Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TCBI over TBBK, 58 versus 55 as of Sep 5, 2026. TCBI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while TBBK holds the stronger quality profile. TCBI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TBBK. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TCBI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. TCBI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Bancorp, Inc. and Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare TBBK and TCBI 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.
- Risk Resilience15%55 vs 80TCBI +25
- Quality30%72 vs 65TBBK +7
- Value30%48 vs 55TCBI +7
- Momentum25%42 vs 39Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor TCBI. TCBI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; TBBK keeps a meaningful quality 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 -11
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: TCBI moved ahead of TBBK in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TBBK and TCBI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TCBI (Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
TBBK (The Bancorp, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 19.8% against 13.9%.
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
TCBITCBI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
TBBKTBBK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TCBITCBI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
TCBITCBI on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
TBBKTBBK on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TCBI, analyst targets favor TBBK. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TBBK | TCBI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.6% | +10.5% | TBBK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +7% | +12.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Strong Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 4 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TCBI. 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 | 55 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | TBBKon balance | revenue growth 24.1% vs -9.9%; EPS growth 2.1% vs 13.3%; TTM ROE 32.3% vs 10%; gross margin 70.4% vs 62.4%; operating margin 40.7% vs 24.8% — TBBK takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TCBI | Value 48 vs 55 |
| Technicals | TBBK | Price vs 50-day -0.3% vs -2%; vs 200-day 8.2% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | TCBI | Risk Resilience 55 vs 80 |
| Analyst expectations | TBBK | Target upside 27.6% vs 10.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TBBK and TCBI 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 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 TCBI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4TCBI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TCBI +3
- 55 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- TCBI +8
- 51 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- TCBI +3
- 59 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- TCBI +4
- 63 vs 67
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when TCBI moved ahead of TBBK.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.44%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
TCBI 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 down over the latest session (price -1.28%, AIQ -3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.85%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1TBBK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to TCBI's edge.
- 2TBBK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3TCBI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
TBBK leads on balance| Metric | TBBK | TCBI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 24.1% | -9.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.1% | 13.3% |
| Gross margin | 70.4% | 62.4% |
| Operating margin | 40.7% | 24.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 32.3% | 10% |
| Debt to equity | 1.36 | 0.23 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | TBBK | TCBI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.8% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23.6% | -3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27% | 7.3% |
| Year to date | -1% | 8.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.3% | 14.2% |
Technicals
TBBK has the stronger structure| Metric | TBBK | TCBI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.6 | 39 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.2% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.8% | 13.9% |
Risk
TCBI is the more resilient| Metric | TBBK | TCBI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.15 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.2 | 0.45 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.22 | 0.55 |
| Max drawdown | -35.9% | -14.2% |
| Current drawdown | -16.8% | -8.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.9% | 27.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TBBK or TCBI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TCBI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against TBBK's 55. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. TBBK is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 TBBK or TCBI the better buy right now?
TCBI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 TCBI over TBBK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TCBI leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; TBBK leads Quality by 7 points; TCBI leads Value by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TBBK or TCBI?
Analyst price targets imply +27.6% upside for TBBK and +10.5% for TCBI, so the Street currently favors TBBK. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TCBI. 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, TBBK or TCBI?
TCBI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TCBI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, TBBK or TCBI?
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, TBBK or TCBI?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, TBBK or TCBI?
TCBI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TCBI on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 TBBK more profitable than TCBI?
TBBK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 70.4% vs 62.4%; operating margin 40.7% vs 24.8%; ttm roe 32.3% vs 10%.
Is TCBI's lead over TBBK getting stronger or weaker?
TCBI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when TCBI moved ahead of TBBK.
What would change the TBBK vs TCBI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TBBK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to TCBI's edge; TBBK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; TCBI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about TBBK and TCBI?
TBBK: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TCBI: 1 bullish / 1 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 TBBK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TCBI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TBBK and TCBI 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.