Truist Financial Corporation
Truist Financial Corporation (TFC-PR) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
See (TFC-PR) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Banks - Regional Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFC-PR | $19.45 | -0.02% | 25B | 4.33 | $4.48 | +4.67% |
| HDB | $73.85 | +0.00% | 191.9B | 25.09 | $2.99 | +0.88% |
| IBN | $32.62 | +0.00% | 117.4B | 19.57 | $1.68 | +0.78% |
| MFG | $6.50 | +0.00% | 83.4B | 13.91 | $0.48 | +2.35% |
| PNC | $194.57 | +0.00% | 75.3B | 13.08 | $14.62 | +3.38% |
| USB-PA | $824.50 | +0.00% | 72.9B | 235.61 | $3.51 | +4.34% |
| USB-PP | $23.30 | +0.00% | 72.8B | 5.03 | $4.64 | +4.34% |
| USB-PH | $20.30 | +0.00% | 72.5B | 4.37 | $4.64 | +4.34% |
| USB-PS | $19.09 | -0.03% | 72.2B | N/A | N/A | +4.34% |
| USB | $46.83 | +0.00% | 71.5B | 10.99 | $4.18 | +4.34% |
Stock Comparison
TFC-PR vs HDB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, HDB has a market cap of 191.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while HDB trades at $73.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas HDB's P/E ratio is 25.09. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HDB's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to HDB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check HDB's competition here
TFC-PR vs IBN Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, IBN has a market cap of 117.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while IBN trades at $32.62.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas IBN's P/E ratio is 19.57. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to IBN's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to IBN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check IBN's competition here
TFC-PR vs MFG Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, MFG has a market cap of 83.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while MFG trades at $6.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas MFG's P/E ratio is 13.91. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to MFG's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to MFG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check MFG's competition here
TFC-PR vs PNC Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, PNC has a market cap of 75.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while PNC trades at $194.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas PNC's P/E ratio is 13.08. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to PNC's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to PNC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check PNC's competition here
TFC-PR vs USB-PA Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, USB-PA has a market cap of 72.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while USB-PA trades at $824.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas USB-PA's P/E ratio is 235.61. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to USB-PA's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to USB-PA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check USB-PA's competition here
TFC-PR vs USB-PP Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, USB-PP has a market cap of 72.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while USB-PP trades at $23.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas USB-PP's P/E ratio is 5.03. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to USB-PP's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to USB-PP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check USB-PP's competition here
TFC-PR vs USB-PH Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, USB-PH has a market cap of 72.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while USB-PH trades at $20.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas USB-PH's P/E ratio is 4.37. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to USB-PH's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to USB-PH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check USB-PH's competition here
TFC-PR vs USB-PS Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, USB-PS has a market cap of 72.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while USB-PS trades at $19.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas USB-PS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to USB-PS's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to USB-PS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check USB-PS's competition here
TFC-PR vs USB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, USB has a market cap of 71.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while USB trades at $46.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas USB's P/E ratio is 10.99. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to USB's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to USB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check USB's competition here
TFC-PR vs ITUB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, ITUB has a market cap of 71.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while ITUB trades at $6.97.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas ITUB's P/E ratio is 9.41. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ITUB's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to ITUB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check ITUB's competition here
TFC-PR vs DB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, DB has a market cap of 70.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while DB trades at $36.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas DB's P/E ratio is 12.88. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to DB's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to DB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check DB's competition here
TFC-PR vs LYG Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, LYG has a market cap of 67.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while LYG trades at $4.58.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas LYG's P/E ratio is 12.90. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to LYG's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to LYG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check LYG's competition here
TFC-PR vs TFC Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, TFC has a market cap of 57.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while TFC trades at $44.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas TFC's P/E ratio is 12.04. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to TFC's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to TFC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check TFC's competition here
TFC-PR vs HBANL Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, HBANL has a market cap of 37.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while HBANL trades at $25.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas HBANL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HBANL's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to HBANL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check HBANL's competition here
TFC-PR vs BSBR Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, BSBR has a market cap of 37.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while BSBR trades at $4.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas BSBR's P/E ratio is 17.84. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BSBR's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BSBR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BSBR's competition here
TFC-PR vs HBANM Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, HBANM has a market cap of 33.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while HBANM trades at $23.24.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas HBANM's P/E ratio is 29.36. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HBANM's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to HBANM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check HBANM's competition here
TFC-PR vs BBD Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, BBD has a market cap of 31.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while BBD trades at $2.96.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas BBD's P/E ratio is 8.72. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BBD's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BBD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BBD's competition here
TFC-PR vs KB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, KB has a market cap of 30.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while KB trades at $81.88.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas KB's P/E ratio is 7.67. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KB's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to KB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KB's competition here
TFC-PR vs MTB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, MTB has a market cap of 29.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while MTB trades at $193.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas MTB's P/E ratio is 12.31. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to MTB's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to MTB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check MTB's competition here
TFC-PR vs FITB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FITB has a market cap of 28.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FITB trades at $43.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FITB's P/E ratio is 13.23. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FITB's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to FITB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FITB's competition here
TFC-PR vs TFC-PO Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, TFC-PO has a market cap of 27.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while TFC-PO trades at $21.54.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas TFC-PO's P/E ratio is 4.83. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to TFC-PO's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to TFC-PO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check TFC-PO's competition here
TFC-PR vs KEY-PL Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, KEY-PL has a market cap of 27.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while KEY-PL trades at $24.94.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas KEY-PL's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KEY-PL's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to KEY-PL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KEY-PL's competition here
TFC-PR vs BBDO Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, BBDO has a market cap of 27.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while BBDO trades at $2.58.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas BBDO's P/E ratio is 7.59. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BBDO's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BBDO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BBDO's competition here
TFC-PR vs TFC-PI Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, TFC-PI has a market cap of 27B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while TFC-PI trades at $20.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas TFC-PI's P/E ratio is 4.67. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to TFC-PI's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to TFC-PI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check TFC-PI's competition here
TFC-PR vs HBANP Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, HBANP has a market cap of 26.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while HBANP trades at $18.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas HBANP's P/E ratio is 23.26. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HBANP's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to HBANP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check HBANP's competition here
TFC-PR vs USB-PR Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, USB-PR has a market cap of 25.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while USB-PR trades at $16.64.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas USB-PR's P/E ratio is 3.57. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to USB-PR's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to USB-PR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check USB-PR's competition here
TFC-PR vs FCNCP Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FCNCP has a market cap of 24.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FCNCP trades at $22.44.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FCNCP's P/E ratio is 0.39. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FCNCP's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to FCNCP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FCNCP's competition here
TFC-PR vs FCNCO Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FCNCO has a market cap of 24.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FCNCO trades at $23.76.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FCNCO's P/E ratio is 0.41. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FCNCO's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to FCNCO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FCNCO's competition here
TFC-PR vs HBAN Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, HBAN has a market cap of 24.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while HBAN trades at $16.81.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas HBAN's P/E ratio is 12.37. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HBAN's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to HBAN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check HBAN's competition here
TFC-PR vs SHG Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, SHG has a market cap of 24.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while SHG trades at $49.94.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas SHG's P/E ratio is 7.85. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SHG's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to SHG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check SHG's competition here
TFC-PR vs USB-PQ Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, USB-PQ has a market cap of 24.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while USB-PQ trades at $15.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas USB-PQ's P/E ratio is 3.35. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to USB-PQ's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to USB-PQ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check USB-PQ's competition here
TFC-PR vs FCNCA Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FCNCA has a market cap of 23.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FCNCA trades at $1,925.24.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FCNCA's P/E ratio is 11.05. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FCNCA's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to FCNCA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FCNCA's competition here
TFC-PR vs RF-PF Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, RF-PF has a market cap of 23.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while RF-PF trades at $25.66.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas RF-PF's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to RF-PF's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to RF-PF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check RF-PF's competition here
TFC-PR vs RF-PC Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, RF-PC has a market cap of 23.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while RF-PC trades at $24.67.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas RF-PC's P/E ratio is 10.23. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to RF-PC's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to RF-PC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check RF-PC's competition here
TFC-PR vs RF Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, RF has a market cap of 22.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while RF trades at $26.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas RF's P/E ratio is 11.97. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to RF's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to RF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check RF's competition here
TFC-PR vs CFG Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, CFG has a market cap of 20.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while CFG trades at $49.21.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas CFG's P/E ratio is 14.72. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CFG's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to CFG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CFG's competition here
TFC-PR vs KEY-PJ Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, KEY-PJ has a market cap of 20B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while KEY-PJ trades at $22.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas KEY-PJ's P/E ratio is 9.09. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KEY-PJ's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to KEY-PJ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KEY-PJ's competition here
TFC-PR vs BAP Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, BAP has a market cap of 20B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while BAP trades at $250.36.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas BAP's P/E ratio is 12.48. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BAP's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BAP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BAP's competition here
TFC-PR vs KEY-PI Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, KEY-PI has a market cap of 20B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while KEY-PI trades at $24.87.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas KEY-PI's P/E ratio is 10.06. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KEY-PI's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to KEY-PI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KEY-PI's competition here
TFC-PR vs KEY Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, KEY has a market cap of 19.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while KEY trades at $18.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas KEY's P/E ratio is -225.56. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KEY's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to KEY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KEY's competition here
TFC-PR vs KEY-PK Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, KEY-PK has a market cap of 18.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while KEY-PK trades at $22.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas KEY-PK's P/E ratio is 14.98. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KEY-PK's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to KEY-PK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KEY-PK's competition here
TFC-PR vs FITBI Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FITBI has a market cap of 16.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FITBI trades at $25.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FITBI's P/E ratio is 7.32. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FITBI's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to FITBI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FITBI's competition here
TFC-PR vs FITBP Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FITBP has a market cap of 16.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FITBP trades at $24.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FITBP's P/E ratio is 6.96. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FITBP's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to FITBP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FITBP's competition here
TFC-PR vs RF-PE Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, RF-PE has a market cap of 15.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while RF-PE trades at $17.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas RF-PE's P/E ratio is 7.35. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to RF-PE's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to RF-PE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check RF-PE's competition here
TFC-PR vs CFG-PD Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, CFG-PD has a market cap of 14.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while CFG-PD trades at $24.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas CFG-PD's P/E ratio is 5.29. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CFG-PD's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to CFG-PD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CFG-PD's competition here
TFC-PR vs BCH Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, BCH has a market cap of 14.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while BCH trades at $28.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas BCH's P/E ratio is 11.19. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BCH's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BCH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BCH's competition here
TFC-PR vs VLYPN Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, VLYPN has a market cap of 14.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while VLYPN trades at $25.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas VLYPN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to VLYPN's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to VLYPN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check VLYPN's competition here
TFC-PR vs FITBO Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FITBO has a market cap of 13.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FITBO trades at $20.45.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FITBO's P/E ratio is 5.86. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FITBO's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to FITBO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FITBO's competition here
TFC-PR vs WF Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, WF has a market cap of 13.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while WF trades at $55.08.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas WF's P/E ratio is 6.91. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to WF's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to WF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check WF's competition here
TFC-PR vs FHN-PB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FHN-PB has a market cap of 12.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FHN-PB trades at $0.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FHN-PB's P/E ratio is 14.88. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FHN-PB's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to FHN-PB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FHN-PB's competition here
TFC-PR vs FHN-PC Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FHN-PC has a market cap of 12.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FHN-PC trades at $25.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FHN-PC's P/E ratio is 14.95. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FHN-PC's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to FHN-PC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FHN-PC's competition here
TFC-PR vs FHN-PE Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FHN-PE has a market cap of 12.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FHN-PE trades at $25.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FHN-PE's P/E ratio is 14.90. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FHN-PE's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to FHN-PE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FHN-PE's competition here
TFC-PR vs CFG-PH Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, CFG-PH has a market cap of 12.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while CFG-PH trades at $26.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas CFG-PH's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CFG-PH's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to CFG-PH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CFG-PH's competition here
TFC-PR vs CIB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, CIB has a market cap of 11.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while CIB trades at $48.56.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas CIB's P/E ratio is 7.25. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CIB's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to CIB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CIB's competition here
TFC-PR vs BSAC Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, BSAC has a market cap of 11.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while BSAC trades at $24.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas BSAC's P/E ratio is 10.18. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BSAC's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BSAC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BSAC's competition here
TFC-PR vs FHN Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FHN has a market cap of 11.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FHN trades at $22.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FHN's P/E ratio is 14.09. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FHN's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to FHN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FHN's competition here
TFC-PR vs CUBI-PE Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, CUBI-PE has a market cap of 10.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while CUBI-PE trades at $350.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas CUBI-PE's P/E ratio is 33.71. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CUBI-PE's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to CUBI-PE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CUBI-PE's competition here
TFC-PR vs SSB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, SSB has a market cap of 9.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while SSB trades at $97.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas SSB's P/E ratio is 14.19. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SSB's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to SSB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check SSB's competition here
TFC-PR vs WBS Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, WBS has a market cap of 9.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while WBS trades at $58.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas WBS's P/E ratio is 11.68. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to WBS's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to WBS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check WBS's competition here
TFC-PR vs FHN-PF Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FHN-PF has a market cap of 9.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FHN-PF trades at $18.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FHN-PF's P/E ratio is 10.86. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FHN-PF's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to FHN-PF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FHN-PF's competition here
TFC-PR vs WAL Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, WAL has a market cap of 9.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while WAL trades at $83.94.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas WAL's P/E ratio is 10.85. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to WAL's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to WAL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check WAL's competition here
TFC-PR vs FHN-PD Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FHN-PD has a market cap of 8.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FHN-PD trades at $24.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FHN-PD's P/E ratio is 14.88. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FHN-PD's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to FHN-PD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FHN-PD's competition here
TFC-PR vs UMBF Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, UMBF has a market cap of 8.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while UMBF trades at $117.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas UMBF's P/E ratio is 13.03. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to UMBF's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to UMBF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check UMBF's competition here
TFC-PR vs CMA Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, CMA has a market cap of 8.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while CMA trades at $69.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas CMA's P/E ratio is 13.03. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CMA's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to CMA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CMA's competition here
TFC-PR vs CFG-PE Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, CFG-PE has a market cap of 8.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while CFG-PE trades at $19.94.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas CFG-PE's P/E ratio is 4.20. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CFG-PE's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to CFG-PE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CFG-PE's competition here
TFC-PR vs WTFC Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, WTFC has a market cap of 8.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while WTFC trades at $127.88.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas WTFC's P/E ratio is 12.02. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to WTFC's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to WTFC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check WTFC's competition here
TFC-PR vs ONB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, ONB has a market cap of 8.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while ONB trades at $21.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas ONB's P/E ratio is 12.69. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ONB's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to ONB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check ONB's competition here
TFC-PR vs ONBPP Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, ONBPP has a market cap of 8.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while ONBPP trades at $25.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas ONBPP's P/E ratio is 28.16. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ONBPP's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to ONBPP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check ONBPP's competition here
TFC-PR vs ONBPO Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, ONBPO has a market cap of 8.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while ONBPO trades at $25.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas ONBPO's P/E ratio is 28.14. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ONBPO's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to ONBPO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check ONBPO's competition here
TFC-PR vs CBSH Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, CBSH has a market cap of 8.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while CBSH trades at $61.92.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas CBSH's P/E ratio is 14.78. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CBSH's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to CBSH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CBSH's competition here
TFC-PR vs CFR Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, CFR has a market cap of 8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while CFR trades at $126.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas CFR's P/E ratio is 13.37. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CFR's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to CFR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CFR's competition here
TFC-PR vs BPOP Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, BPOP has a market cap of 8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while BPOP trades at $119.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas BPOP's P/E ratio is 11.47. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BPOP's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BPOP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BPOP's competition here
TFC-PR vs ZION Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, ZION has a market cap of 7.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while ZION trades at $53.77.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas ZION's P/E ratio is 9.61. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ZION's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to ZION. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check ZION's competition here
TFC-PR vs GGAL Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, GGAL has a market cap of 7.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while GGAL trades at $49.44.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas GGAL's P/E ratio is 6.82. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to GGAL's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to GGAL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check GGAL's competition here
TFC-PR vs BSMX Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, BSMX has a market cap of 7.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while BSMX trades at $5.46.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas BSMX's P/E ratio is 4.88. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BSMX's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BSMX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BSMX's competition here
TFC-PR vs PNFP Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, PNFP has a market cap of 7.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while PNFP trades at $93.42.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas PNFP's P/E ratio is 12.26. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to PNFP's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to PNFP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check PNFP's competition here
TFC-PR vs SNV Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, SNV has a market cap of 6.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while SNV trades at $49.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas SNV's P/E ratio is 9.55. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SNV's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to SNV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check SNV's competition here
TFC-PR vs SNV-PD Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, SNV-PD has a market cap of 6.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while SNV-PD trades at $25.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas SNV-PD's P/E ratio is 5.32. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SNV-PD's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to SNV-PD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check SNV-PD's competition here
TFC-PR vs BOKF Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, BOKF has a market cap of 6.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while BOKF trades at $106.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas BOKF's P/E ratio is 12.48. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BOKF's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BOKF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BOKF's competition here
TFC-PR vs CADE Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, CADE has a market cap of 6.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while CADE trades at $36.24.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas CADE's P/E ratio is 12.77. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CADE's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to CADE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CADE's competition here
TFC-PR vs PB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, PB has a market cap of 6.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while PB trades at $68.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas PB's P/E ratio is 12.21. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to PB's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to PB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check PB's competition here
TFC-PR vs FNB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FNB has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FNB trades at $15.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FNB's P/E ratio is 12.18. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FNB's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to FNB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FNB's competition here
TFC-PR vs OZK Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, OZK has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while OZK trades at $50.29.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas OZK's P/E ratio is 8.01. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to OZK's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to OZK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check OZK's competition here
TFC-PR vs HOMB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, HOMB has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while HOMB trades at $28.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas HOMB's P/E ratio is 12.89. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HOMB's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to HOMB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check HOMB's competition here
TFC-PR vs VLY Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, VLY has a market cap of 5.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while VLY trades at $10.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas VLY's P/E ratio is 12.59. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to VLY's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to VLY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check VLY's competition here
TFC-PR vs VLYPP Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, VLYPP has a market cap of 5.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while VLYPP trades at $25.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas VLYPP's P/E ratio is 22.84. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to VLYPP's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to VLYPP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check VLYPP's competition here
TFC-PR vs VLYPO Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, VLYPO has a market cap of 5.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while VLYPO trades at $25.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas VLYPO's P/E ratio is 22.54. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to VLYPO's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to VLYPO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check VLYPO's competition here
TFC-PR vs COLB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, COLB has a market cap of 5.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while COLB trades at $26.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas COLB's P/E ratio is 10.17. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to COLB's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to COLB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check COLB's competition here
TFC-PR vs GBCI Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, GBCI has a market cap of 5.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while GBCI trades at $46.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas GBCI's P/E ratio is 23.52. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to GBCI's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to GBCI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check GBCI's competition here
TFC-PR vs BXS Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, BXS has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while BXS trades at $28.76.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas BXS's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BXS's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BXS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BXS's competition here
TFC-PR vs UBSI Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, UBSI has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while UBSI trades at $37.73.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas UBSI's P/E ratio is 12.99. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to UBSI's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to UBSI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check UBSI's competition here
TFC-PR vs HWCPZ Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, HWCPZ has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while HWCPZ trades at $24.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas HWCPZ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HWCPZ's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to HWCPZ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check HWCPZ's competition here
TFC-PR vs HWC Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, HWC has a market cap of 5.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while HWC trades at $61.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas HWC's P/E ratio is 11.04. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HWC's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to HWC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check HWC's competition here
TFC-PR vs FFIN Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FFIN has a market cap of 5.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FFIN trades at $36.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FFIN's P/E ratio is 20.69. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FFIN's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to FFIN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FFIN's competition here
TFC-PR vs AX Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, AX has a market cap of 5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while AX trades at $89.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas AX's P/E ratio is 11.85. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to AX's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to AX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check AX's competition here
TFC-PR vs FLG Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, FLG has a market cap of 5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while FLG trades at $11.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas FLG's P/E ratio is -8.18. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FLG's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to FLG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FLG's competition here
TFC-PR vs ABCB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, ABCB has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while ABCB trades at $71.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas ABCB's P/E ratio is 12.34. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ABCB's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to ABCB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check ABCB's competition here
TFC-PR vs NYCB-PA Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, NYCB-PA has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while NYCB-PA trades at $21.28.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas NYCB-PA's P/E ratio is 17.46. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to NYCB-PA's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to NYCB-PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check NYCB-PA's competition here
TFC-PR vs AUB Comparison August 2025
TFC-PR plays a significant role within the Financial Services sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, TFC-PR stands at 25B. In comparison, AUB has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.45, while AUB trades at $34.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
TFC-PR currently has a P/E ratio of 4.33, whereas AUB's P/E ratio is 17.22. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to AUB's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to AUB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check AUB's competition here