TCBI vs WAFD Stock Comparison
TCBI currently leads WAFD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 50. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while WAFD has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between TCBI and WAFD?
TCBI leads the current stock comparison as Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. vs WaFd, Inc.
TCBI leads
TCBI leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors WAFD on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TCBI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.
WaFd, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TCBI over WAFD, 56 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. TCBI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while WAFD holds the stronger value profile. TCBI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WAFD. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TCBI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TCBI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. and WaFd, 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 TCBI and WAFD 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 Resilience75 vs 56TCBI +19
- Quality65 vs 50TCBI +15
- Value53 vs 64WAFD +11
- Momentum36 vs 31TCBI +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TCBI. TCBI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; WAFD keeps a meaningful value 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
TCBI's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TCBI and WAFD 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 quality.
WAFD (WaFd, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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 most heavily.
Growth
TCBITCBI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WAFDWAFD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
TCBITCBI on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
TCBITCBI on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
WAFDWAFD 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 WAFD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TCBI | WAFD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.4% | +27% | WAFD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +12.8% | +22.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 2 | 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
4 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 | TCBI | 56 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | TCBIon balance | revenue growth -9.9% vs 4.6%; EPS growth 13.3% vs -14.6%; TTM ROE 10% vs 8.5%; gross margin 62.4% vs 54.7%; operating margin 24.8% vs 23.1% — TCBI takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WAFD | Value 53 vs 64 |
| Technicals | TCBI | Price vs 50-day -2.3% vs -14.5%; vs 200-day -7.6% vs -16% |
| Risk Resilience | TCBI | Risk Resilience 75 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | WAFD | Target upside 17.4% vs 27% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TCBI and WAFD and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 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 TCBI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TCBI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TCBI +6
- 56 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- TCBI +3
- 53 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- TCBI +5
- 54 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- TCBI +1
- 63 vs 62
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 12 when TCBI moved ahead of WAFD.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only WAFD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 up over the latest session (price +2.67%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.94%, 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.
- 1WAFD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to TCBI's edge.
- 2WAFD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TCBI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | WAFD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.9% | 4.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 13.3% | -14.6% |
| Gross margin | 62.4% | 54.7% |
| Operating margin | 24.8% | 23.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10% | 8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.85 |
Performance
TCBI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TCBI | WAFD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.6% | -9.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.5% | -22.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -12.4% | -17.4% |
| Year to date | 0.6% | -8.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.1% | 2.8% |
Technicals
TCBI has the stronger structure| Metric | TCBI | WAFD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43 | 37.5 |
| ADX (14) | 28.4 | 43.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.3% | -14.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.6% | -16% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.5% | 23.7% |
Risk
TCBI is the more resilient| Metric | TCBI | WAFD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.75 | 0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | 0.05 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -27.7% |
| Current drawdown | -15.5% | -27.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 24% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TCBI or WAFD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TCBI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against WAFD's 50. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. WAFD is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 WAFD the better buy right now?
TCBI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TCBI over WAFD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TCBI leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; TCBI leads Quality by 15 points; WAFD leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TCBI or WAFD?
Analyst price targets imply +17.4% upside for TCBI and +27% for WAFD, so the Street currently favors WAFD. 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, TCBI or WAFD?
WAFD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WAFD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, TCBI or WAFD?
TCBI 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 WAFD?
TCBI on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 WAFD?
TCBI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TCBI on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 WAFD?
TCBI leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 62.4% vs 54.7%; operating margin 24.8% vs 23.1%; ttm roe 10% vs 8.5%.
Is TCBI's lead over WAFD getting stronger or weaker?
TCBI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-12, when TCBI moved ahead of WAFD.
What would change the TCBI vs WAFD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WAFD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to TCBI's edge; WAFD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TCBI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 WAFD?
TCBI: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. WAFD: 1 bullish / 2 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 TCBI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WAFD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare TCBI and WAFD 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.