Chemung Financial vs Franklin Financial Services
CHMG and FRAF side by side, both in commercial banks. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CHMG and FRAF compare
Chemung Financial is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Franklin Financial Services ($416M against $320M).
On earnings, Chemung Financial is cheaper: it trades at 12.4× trailing earnings, against 12.9× for Franklin Financial Services.
Chemung Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (40.0% versus 22.3% for Franklin Financial Services).
Chemung Financial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 27.9% compared with 26.0% at Franklin Financial Services.
Both pay dividends: Chemung Financial yields 1.6% and Franklin Financial Services 1.9%.
Franklin Financial Services scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 13 for Chemung Financial), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CHMG | FRAF |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $416M | $320M |
| Share price | $86.27 | $71.11 |
| Change, 1 year | 68.5% | 55.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 80.9% | 121% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.35 | 0.25 |
| Employees | 348 | 306 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.4× (better) | 12.9× |
| P/S | 3.5× | 3.4× (better) |
| P/B | 1.5× (better) | 1.7× |
| P/FCF | 9.2× | – |
| PEG | – | 1.06 |
| FCF yield | 10.9% | – |
| Fair value | $69.40 | $54.50 |
| Margin of safety | −24.3% (better) | −30.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 40.0% (better) | 22.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% | 9.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 199% (better) | 69.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 197% (better) | 68.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −4.8% | 10.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 27.9% (better) | 26.0% |
| FCF margin | 37.7% | – |
| Return on equity | 13.3% | 14.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Altman Z-score | 0.28 (better) | 0.23 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% | 1.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 19.5% | 24.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.9% (better) | 1.8% |
| Buyback yield | 0.12% | 0.44% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.7% | 2.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 49.8% | 37.5% |
| Held by insiders | 13.0% | 8.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$734K | −$32.1K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.6% | 5.9% |
Go deeper
- CHMG stock overview
- CHMG income statement
- CHMG valuation and score
- FRAF stock overview
- FRAF income statement
- FRAF valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.