UMBF vs WSFS Stock Comparison
Compare UMBF vs WSFS on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between UMBF and WSFS?
UMBF and WSFS are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
UMB Financial Corporation vs WSFS Financial Corporation
UMBF and WSFS are effectively level
UMBF and WSFS are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
UMB Financial Corporation
WSFS Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate UMBF and WSFS as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare UMB Financial Corporation and WSFS 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 UMBF and WSFS 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.
- Quality62 vs 70WSFS +8
- Value56 vs 49UMBF +7
- Risk Resilience60 vs 64WSFS +4
- Momentum57 vs 56Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +19
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
WSFS's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UMBF and WSFS both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
UMBFUMBF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UMBFUMBF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WSFSWSFS on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 | UMBF | WSFS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.1% | +6% | UMBF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.4% | +13.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | UMBF | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.45% | 6.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.250 | $0.480 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.630 | $0.660 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #234 | #198 |
WSFS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.58% a year against UMBF's 5.45%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | WSFSon balance | revenue growth 28.8% vs 3.9%; TTM ROE 12.2% vs 11.7%; gross margin 58.5% vs 78.4%; operating margin 22.1% vs 31.3% — WSFS takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | UMBF | Value 56 vs 49 |
| Technicals | WSFS | Price vs 50-day -3.7% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day 1.8% vs 7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | WSFS | Risk Resilience 60 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | UMBF | Target upside 22.1% vs 6% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WSFS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- WSFS +1
- 55 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- WSFS +2
- 52 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- UMBF +3
- 64 vs 61
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when WSFS moved ahead of UMBF.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only WSFS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.65%, AIQ +1 points).
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
WSFS leads on balance| Metric | UMBF | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 28.8% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.5% | -0.6% |
| Gross margin | 58.5% | 78.4% |
| Operating margin | 22.1% | 31.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.2% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.44 | 0.11 |
Performance
WSFS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | UMBF | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.3% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.8% | 0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.5% | -2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.2% | 11% |
| Year to date | 15.7% | 40% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.9% | 53.3% |
Technicals
WSFS has the stronger structure| Metric | UMBF | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.2 | 58.3 |
| ADX (14) | 29.4 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.7% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.8% | 7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.9% | 17.5% |
Risk
WSFS is the more resilient| Metric | UMBF | WSFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.79 | 1.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | 2.95 |
| Max drawdown | -18.9% | -11.7% |
| Current drawdown | -12.5% | -6% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.5% | 21.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, UMBF or WSFS?
Analyst price targets imply +22.1% upside for UMBF and +6% for WSFS, so the Street currently favors UMBF. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, UMBF or WSFS?
UMBF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UMBF 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, UMBF or WSFS?
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, UMBF or WSFS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, UMBF or WSFS?
WSFS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WSFS on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 UMBF more profitable than WSFS?
WSFS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 58.5% vs 78.4%; operating margin 22.1% vs 31.3%; ttm roe 12.2% vs 11.7%.
What do the current signals say about UMBF and WSFS?
UMBF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. WSFS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on UMBF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WSFS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare UMBF and WSFS 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.