TCBI vs UMBF Stock Comparison
UMBF currently leads TCBI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 56. The clearest difference is momentum, while TCBI has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between TCBI and UMBF?
UMBF leads the current stock comparison as UMB Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. vs UMB Financial Corporation
UMBF leads
UMBF leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from TCBI.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support UMBF, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.
UMB Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UMBF over TCBI, 59 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. UMBF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while TCBI holds the stronger risk resilience profile. UMBF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 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: Reversed — TCBI led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UMBF now leads by 3.
Compare Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. and UMB Financial 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 TCBI 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.
- Momentum36 vs 57UMBF +21
- Risk Resilience75 vs 60TCBI +15
- Quality65 vs 62Even
- Value53 vs 56Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor UMBF. UMBF’s edge is concentrated in momentum; TCBI 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 +4
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +19
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: UMBF moved ahead of TCBI in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TCBI and UMBF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UMBF (UMB Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
TCBI (Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals.
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 most heavily.
Growth
UMBFUMBF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
UMBFUMBF on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
TCBITCBI on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 | TCBI | UMBF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.4% | +22.1% | UMBF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +12.8% | +31.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 10 | 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 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 | 56 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | TCBIon balance | revenue growth -9.9% vs 28.8%; EPS growth 13.3% vs 6.5%; TTM ROE 10% vs 12.2%; gross margin 62.4% vs 58.5%; operating margin 24.8% vs 22.1% — TCBI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 53 vs 56 |
| Technicals | UMBF | Price vs 50-day -2.3% vs -3.7%; vs 200-day -7.6% vs 1.8% |
| Risk Resilience | TCBI | Risk Resilience 75 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | UMBF | Target upside 17.4% vs 22.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TCBI 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 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 UMBF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UMBF lead: Reversed — TCBI led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UMBF now leads by 3.
- Today
- UMBF +3
- 56 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- UMBF +2
- 53 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- TCBI +2
- 54 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- UMBF +1
- 63 vs 64
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when UMBF moved ahead of TCBI.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only TCBI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.00%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only UMBF
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.61%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
TCBI 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.67%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.14%, AIQ +5 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.
- 1TCBI closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to UMBF's edge.
- 2TCBI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UMBF'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
TCBI leads on balance| Metric | TCBI | UMBF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.9% | 28.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 13.3% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | 62.4% | 58.5% |
| Operating margin | 24.8% | 22.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10% | 12.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.44 |
Performance
UMBF leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TCBI | UMBF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.6% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.5% | -5.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -12.4% | 8.2% |
| Year to date | 0.6% | 15.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.1% | 23.9% |
Technicals
UMBF has the stronger structure| Metric | TCBI | UMBF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43 | 58.2 |
| ADX (14) | 28.4 | 29.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.3% | -3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.6% | 1.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.5% | 19.9% |
Risk
TCBI is the more resilient| Metric | TCBI | UMBF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.79 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | 1.21 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -18.9% |
| Current drawdown | -15.5% | -12.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 24.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TCBI or UMBF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UMBF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against TCBI's 56. The edge comes from momentum. TCBI 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 TCBI or UMBF the better buy right now?
UMBF 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UMBF over TCBI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UMBF leads Momentum by 21 points; TCBI leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TCBI or UMBF?
Analyst price targets imply +17.4% upside for TCBI and +22.1% 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, TCBI or UMBF?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, TCBI 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, TCBI or UMBF?
UMBF on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, TCBI or UMBF?
TCBI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TCBI on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 TCBI more profitable than UMBF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 62.4% vs 58.5%; operating margin 24.8% vs 22.1%; ttm roe 10% vs 12.2%. TCBI leads on two measures and UMBF 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 UMBF's lead over TCBI getting stronger or weaker?
UMBF lead: Reversed — TCBI led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UMBF now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when UMBF moved ahead of TCBI.
What would change the TCBI vs UMBF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TCBI closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to UMBF's edge; TCBI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; UMBF'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 TCBI and UMBF?
TCBI: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. UMBF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 TCBI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UMBF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TCBI and UMBF 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.