Hancock Whitney vs M&T Bank
HWC and MTB side by side, both in commercial banks. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HWC and MTB compare
M&T Bank is the larger company, worth 6.1 times as much as Hancock Whitney ($31.9B against $5.2B).
On earnings, M&T Bank is cheaper: it trades at 11.5× trailing earnings, against 13.1× for Hancock Whitney.
M&T Bank grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.5% versus 0.85% for Hancock Whitney).
M&T Bank keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 176% compared with 27.3% at Hancock Whitney.
Both pay dividends: Hancock Whitney yields 3.0% and M&T Bank 2.7%.
M&T Bank scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 10 for Hancock Whitney), 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 | HWC | MTB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.2B | $31.9B |
| Share price | $65.28 | $221.12 |
| Change, 1 year | 10.0% | 17.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 27.8% | 40.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.93 | 0.82 |
| Employees | 3,627 | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.1× | 11.5× (better) |
| P/S | 3.5× (better) | 18.6× |
| P/B | 1.2× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 7.9× | – |
| PEG | – | 0.84 |
| FCF yield | 12.6% | – |
| Fair value | $60.03 | $231.26 |
| Margin of safety | −8.7% | 4.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.85% | 5.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.6% (better) | −22.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −15.0% | 8.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −11.1% | 18.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 11.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 27.3% | 176% (better) |
| FCF margin | 43.9% | – |
| Return on equity | 9.4% | 10.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.31 | 0.23 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.25 | 0.25 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.0% (better) | 2.7% |
| Payout ratio | 39.0% | 29.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.8% | – |
| Buyback yield | 7.1% | 7.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 10.1% | 10.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.4% | 91.4% |
| Held by insiders | 1.1% | 0.36% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.3M (better) | −$24.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 3.4% |
Go deeper
- HWC stock overview
- HWC income statement
- HWC valuation and score
- MTB stock overview
- MTB income statement
- MTB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.