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 | $19.36 | +0.00% | 24.9B | 4.32 | $4.48 | +3.99% |
| USB-PA | $789.25 | -0.00% | 1.3T | 224.50 | $3.51 | +3.49% |
| HDB | $32.70 | +0.00% | 169.8B | 22.67 | $1.46 | +3.33% |
| MFG | $9.32 | +0.00% | 115.6B | 17.02 | $0.55 | +1.85% |
| IBN | $30.44 | +0.02% | 110.5B | 19.08 | $1.62 | +0.83% |
| ITUB | $9.27 | +0.00% | 104.9B | 12.36 | $0.77 | +8.55% |
| USB | $57.89 | +0.00% | 91.2B | 12.70 | $4.62 | +3.49% |
| PNC | $230.30 | +0.00% | 90.9B | 14.05 | $16.58 | +2.89% |
| LYG | $5.65 | +0.00% | 84.7B | 15.17 | $0.38 | +2.88% |
| USB-PP | $23.58 | +0.00% | 74B | 5.09 | $4.64 | +3.49% |
Stock Comparison
TFC-PR vs USB-PA Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, USB-PA has a market cap of 1.3T. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while USB-PA trades at $789.25.
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 4.32, whereas USB-PA's P/E ratio is 224.50. 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 HDB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, HDB has a market cap of 169.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while HDB trades at $32.70.
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 4.32, whereas HDB's P/E ratio is 22.67. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HDB's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to HDB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check HDB's competition here
TFC-PR vs MFG Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, MFG has a market cap of 115.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while MFG trades at $9.32.
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 4.32, whereas MFG's P/E ratio is 17.02. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to MFG's ROE of +0.10%. 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 IBN Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, IBN has a market cap of 110.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while IBN trades at $30.44.
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 4.32, whereas IBN's P/E ratio is 19.08. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to IBN's ROE of +0.21%. 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 ITUB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, ITUB has a market cap of 104.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while ITUB trades at $9.27.
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 4.32, whereas ITUB's P/E ratio is 12.36. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ITUB's ROE of +0.22%. 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 USB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, USB has a market cap of 91.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while USB trades at $57.89.
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 4.32, whereas USB's P/E ratio is 12.70. 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 PNC Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, PNC has a market cap of 90.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while PNC trades at $230.30.
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 4.32, whereas PNC's P/E ratio is 14.05. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to PNC's ROE of +0.12%. 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 LYG Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, LYG has a market cap of 84.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while LYG trades at $5.65.
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 4.32, whereas LYG's P/E ratio is 15.17. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to LYG's ROE of +0.10%. 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 USB-PP Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, USB-PP has a market cap of 74B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while USB-PP trades at $23.58.
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 4.32, whereas USB-PP's P/E ratio is 5.09. 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 less volatile compared to USB-PP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check USB-PP's competition here
TFC-PR vs USB-PS Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, USB-PS has a market cap of 71.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while USB-PS trades at $18.75.
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 4.32, 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 DB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, DB has a market cap of 70.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while DB trades at $35.80.
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 4.32, whereas DB's P/E ratio is 9.64. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to DB's ROE of +0.09%. 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 USB-PH Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, USB-PH has a market cap of 69.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while USB-PH trades at $19.25.
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 4.32, whereas USB-PH's P/E ratio is 4.16. 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 less volatile compared to USB-PH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check USB-PH's competition here
TFC-PR vs TFC Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, TFC has a market cap of 66.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while TFC trades at $51.78.
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 4.32, whereas TFC's P/E ratio is 13.70. 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 BSBR Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BSBR has a market cap of 53.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while BSBR trades at $6.79.
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 4.32, whereas BSBR's P/E ratio is 24.26. 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 BBD Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BBD has a market cap of 44.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while BBD trades at $4.08.
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 4.32, whereas BBD's P/E ratio is 10.23. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BBD's ROE of +0.14%. 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 February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, KB has a market cap of 42.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while KB trades at $113.91.
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 4.32, whereas KB's P/E ratio is 11.25. 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 less volatile compared to KB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KB's competition here
TFC-PR vs BBDO Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BBDO has a market cap of 39.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while BBDO trades at $3.61.
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 4.32, whereas BBDO's P/E ratio is 9.17. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BBDO's ROE of +0.14%. 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 HBANL Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, HBANL has a market cap of 37.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while HBANL trades at $25.64.
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 4.32, 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 MTB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, MTB has a market cap of 35.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while MTB trades at $229.11.
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 4.32, whereas MTB's P/E ratio is 13.69. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to MTB's ROE of +0.10%. 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 February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FITB has a market cap of 35.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FITB trades at $52.90.
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 4.32, whereas FITB's P/E ratio is 15.19. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FITB's ROE of +0.12%. 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 SHG Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, SHG has a market cap of 34.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while SHG trades at $69.59.
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 4.32, whereas SHG's P/E ratio is 10.03. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SHG's ROE of +0.09%. 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 HBANM Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, HBANM has a market cap of 34.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while HBANM trades at $23.06.
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 4.32, whereas HBANM's P/E ratio is 29.92. 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 and HBANM have similar daily volatility (0.78).Check HBANM's competition here
TFC-PR vs TFC-PO Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, TFC-PO has a market cap of 28.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while TFC-PO trades at $22.09.
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 4.32, whereas TFC-PO's P/E ratio is 4.94. 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 less volatile compared to TFC-PO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check TFC-PO's competition here
TFC-PR vs HBAN Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, HBAN has a market cap of 28.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while HBAN trades at $17.85.
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 4.32, whereas HBAN's P/E ratio is 12.96. 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 CFG Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CFG has a market cap of 28B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CFG trades at $64.59.
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 4.32, whereas CFG's P/E ratio is 16.92. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CFG's ROE of +0.07%. 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-PL Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, KEY-PL has a market cap of 27.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while KEY-PL trades at $25.51.
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 4.32, 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 +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to KEY-PL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KEY-PL's competition here
TFC-PR vs BAP Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BAP has a market cap of 27.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while BAP trades at $349.40.
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 4.32, whereas BAP's P/E ratio is 14.75. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BAP's ROE of +0.19%. 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 HBANP Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, HBANP has a market cap of 26.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while HBANP trades at $17.84.
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 4.32, whereas HBANP's P/E ratio is 22.93. 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 more volatile compared to HBANP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check HBANP's competition here
TFC-PR vs RF Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, RF has a market cap of 26.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while RF trades at $29.72.
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 4.32, whereas RF's P/E ratio is 13.07. 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 USB-PR Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, USB-PR has a market cap of 25.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while USB-PR trades at $16.57.
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 4.32, 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 TFC-PI Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, TFC-PI has a market cap of 25.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while TFC-PI trades at $19.82.
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 4.32, whereas TFC-PI's P/E ratio is 4.42. 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 FCNCA Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FCNCA has a market cap of 24.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FCNCA trades at $2,045.30.
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 4.32, whereas FCNCA's P/E ratio is 12.21. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FCNCA's ROE of +0.10%. 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 KEY Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, KEY has a market cap of 24.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while KEY trades at $21.79.
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 4.32, whereas KEY's P/E ratio is 14.60. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KEY's ROE of +0.09%. 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 USB-PQ Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, USB-PQ has a market cap of 24.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while USB-PQ trades at $15.65.
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 4.32, whereas USB-PQ's P/E ratio is 3.36. 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 more volatile compared to USB-PQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check USB-PQ's competition here
TFC-PR vs RF-PF Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, RF-PF has a market cap of 23.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while RF-PF trades at $25.94.
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 4.32, 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 KEY-PJ Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, KEY-PJ has a market cap of 23B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while KEY-PJ trades at $22.36.
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 4.32, whereas KEY-PJ's P/E ratio is 9.00. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KEY-PJ's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to KEY-PJ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KEY-PJ's competition here
TFC-PR vs RF-PC Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, RF-PC has a market cap of 22.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while RF-PC trades at $24.83.
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 4.32, whereas RF-PC's P/E ratio is 10.30. 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 less volatile compared to RF-PC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check RF-PC's competition here
TFC-PR vs BCH Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BCH has a market cap of 21.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while BCH trades at $42.26.
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 4.32, whereas BCH's P/E ratio is 15.67. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BCH's ROE of +0.21%. 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 CIB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CIB has a market cap of 20.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CIB trades at $78.99.
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 4.32, whereas CIB's P/E ratio is 9.62. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CIB's ROE of +0.17%. 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 WF Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, WF has a market cap of 20.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while WF trades at $80.37.
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 4.32, whereas WF's P/E ratio is 9.74. 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 KEY-PI Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, KEY-PI has a market cap of 20.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while KEY-PI trades at $25.25.
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 4.32, whereas KEY-PI's P/E ratio is 10.19. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KEY-PI's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to KEY-PI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KEY-PI's competition here
TFC-PR vs KEY-PK Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, KEY-PK has a market cap of 18B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while KEY-PK trades at $22.50.
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 4.32, whereas KEY-PK's P/E ratio is 14.95. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KEY-PK's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to KEY-PK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check KEY-PK's competition here
TFC-PR vs BSAC Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BSAC has a market cap of 17B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while BSAC trades at $35.56.
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 4.32, whereas BSAC's P/E ratio is 13.78. 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 FITBI Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FITBI has a market cap of 17B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FITBI trades at $25.85.
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 4.32, whereas FITBI's P/E ratio is 7.44. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FITBI's ROE of +0.12%. 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 February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FITBP has a market cap of 16.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FITBP trades at $24.77.
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 4.32, whereas FITBP's P/E ratio is 7.11. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FITBP's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to FITBP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FITBP's competition here
TFC-PR vs RF-PE Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, RF-PE has a market cap of 15.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while RF-PE trades at $17.71.
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 4.32, 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 February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CFG-PD has a market cap of 14.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, 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 4.32, 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 +0.07%. 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 VLYPN Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, VLYPN has a market cap of 14.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while VLYPN trades at $26.30.
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 4.32, 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 +0.08%. 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 February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FITBO has a market cap of 13.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FITBO trades at $19.98.
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 4.32, whereas FITBO's P/E ratio is 5.75. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FITBO's ROE of +0.12%. 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 FHN-PC Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FHN-PC has a market cap of 12.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FHN-PC trades at $25.21.
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 4.32, whereas FHN-PC's P/E ratio is 15.02. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FHN-PC's ROE of +0.11%. 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-PB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FHN-PB has a market cap of 12.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FHN-PB 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 4.32, 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 +0.11%. 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-PE Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FHN-PE has a market cap of 12.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FHN-PE trades at $24.89.
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 4.32, whereas FHN-PE's P/E ratio is 14.85. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FHN-PE's ROE of +0.11%. 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 February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CFG-PH has a market cap of 12.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CFG-PH trades at $26.60.
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 4.32, 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 +0.07%. 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 FHN Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FHN has a market cap of 12.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FHN trades at $25.02.
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 4.32, whereas FHN's P/E ratio is 13.50. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FHN's ROE of +0.11%. 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 WBS Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, WBS has a market cap of 11.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while WBS trades at $72.20.
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 4.32, whereas WBS's P/E ratio is 12.39. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to WBS's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to WBS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check WBS's competition here
TFC-PR vs CMA Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CMA has a market cap of 11.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CMA trades at $88.67.
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 4.32, whereas CMA's P/E ratio is 16.79. 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 SSB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, SSB has a market cap of 10.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while SSB trades at $103.61.
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 4.32, whereas SSB's P/E ratio is 13.40. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SSB's ROE of +0.09%. 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 WTFC Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, WTFC has a market cap of 10.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while WTFC trades at $153.49.
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 4.32, whereas WTFC's P/E ratio is 13.71. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to WTFC's ROE of +0.12%. 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 WAL Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, WAL has a market cap of 10.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while WAL trades at $91.17.
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 4.32, whereas WAL's P/E ratio is 10.70. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to WAL's ROE of +0.13%. 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 ONB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, ONB has a market cap of 9.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while ONB trades at $24.89.
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 4.32, whereas ONB's P/E ratio is 14.08. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ONB's ROE of +0.09%. 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 BPOP Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BPOP has a market cap of 9.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while BPOP trades at $143.85.
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 4.32, whereas BPOP's P/E ratio is 12.00. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BPOP's ROE of +0.14%. 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 UMBF Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, UMBF has a market cap of 9.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while UMBF trades at $126.12.
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 4.32, whereas UMBF's P/E ratio is 13.65. 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 FHN-PF Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FHN-PF has a market cap of 9.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FHN-PF trades at $18.63.
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 4.32, whereas FHN-PF's P/E ratio is 11.26. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FHN-PF's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to FHN-PF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check FHN-PF's competition here
TFC-PR vs ZION Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, ZION has a market cap of 9.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while ZION trades at $61.48.
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 4.32, whereas ZION's P/E ratio is 10.40. 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 CFR Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CFR has a market cap of 9.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CFR trades at $144.86.
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 4.32, whereas CFR's P/E ratio is 14.67. 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 ONBPO Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, ONBPO has a market cap of 9.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while ONBPO trades at $25.18.
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 4.32, whereas ONBPO's P/E ratio is 28.23. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ONBPO's ROE of +0.09%. 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 ONBPP Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, ONBPP has a market cap of 9.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while ONBPP trades at $25.12.
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 4.32, whereas ONBPP's P/E ratio is 28.22. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ONBPP's ROE of +0.09%. 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 FHN-PD Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FHN-PD has a market cap of 8.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, 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 4.32, 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 +0.11%. 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 CFG-PE Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CFG-PE has a market cap of 8.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CFG-PE trades at $20.13.
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 4.32, whereas CFG-PE's P/E ratio is 4.28. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CFG-PE's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is more volatile compared to CFG-PE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CFG-PE's competition here
TFC-PR vs BOKF Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BOKF has a market cap of 8.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while BOKF trades at $133.51.
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 4.32, whereas BOKF's P/E ratio is 14.64. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BOKF's ROE of +0.10%. 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 CBSH Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CBSH has a market cap of 8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CBSH trades at $53.68.
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 4.32, whereas CBSH's P/E ratio is 13.37. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CBSH's ROE of +0.15%. 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 GGAL Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, GGAL has a market cap of 8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while GGAL trades at $47.64.
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 4.32, whereas GGAL's P/E ratio is 7.43. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to GGAL's ROE of +0.14%. 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 CADE Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CADE has a market cap of 7.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CADE trades at $42.11.
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 4.32, whereas CADE's P/E ratio is 15.20. 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 CHYM Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CHYM has a market cap of 7.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CHYM trades at $20.62.
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 4.32, whereas CHYM's P/E ratio is -7.95. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CHYM's ROE of -0.82%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to CHYM. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CHYM's competition here
TFC-PR vs PNFP Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, PNFP has a market cap of 7.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while PNFP trades at $99.13.
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 4.32, whereas PNFP's P/E ratio is 12.88. 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 COLB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, COLB has a market cap of 7.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while COLB trades at $31.19.
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 4.32, whereas COLB's P/E ratio is 13.81. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to COLB's ROE of +0.08%. 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 VLY Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, VLY has a market cap of 7.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while VLY trades at $13.16.
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 4.32, whereas VLY's P/E ratio is 13.23. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to VLY's ROE of +0.08%. 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 BSMX Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BSMX has a market cap of 7.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, 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 4.32, 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 PB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, PB has a market cap of 7.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while PB trades at $72.86.
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 4.32, whereas PB's P/E ratio is 12.86. 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 SNV Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, SNV has a market cap of 6.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while SNV trades at $50.05.
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 4.32, whereas SNV's P/E ratio is 9.37. 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 February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, SNV-PD has a market cap of 6.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while SNV-PD trades at $25.30.
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 4.32, whereas SNV-PD's P/E ratio is 5.25. 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 less volatile compared to SNV-PD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check SNV-PD's competition here
TFC-PR vs FNB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FNB has a market cap of 6.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FNB trades at $18.14.
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 4.32, whereas FNB's P/E ratio is 11.75. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FNB's ROE of +0.09%. 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 GBCI Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, GBCI has a market cap of 6.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while GBCI trades at $49.88.
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 4.32, whereas GBCI's P/E ratio is 25.25. 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 CUBI-PE Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CUBI-PE has a market cap of 6.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CUBI-PE trades at $205.87.
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 4.32, whereas CUBI-PE's P/E ratio is 20.53. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CUBI-PE's ROE of +0.11%. 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 UBSI Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, UBSI has a market cap of 6.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while UBSI trades at $44.07.
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 4.32, whereas UBSI's P/E ratio is 13.54. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to UBSI's ROE of +0.09%. 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 CBC Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, CBC has a market cap of 6.1B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while CBC 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 4.32, whereas CBC's P/E ratio is 18.12. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CBC's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to CBC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check CBC's competition here
TFC-PR vs HWC Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, HWC has a market cap of 6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while HWC trades at $70.27.
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 4.32, whereas HWC's P/E ratio is 12.55. 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 BMA Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BMA has a market cap of 5.9B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while BMA trades at $91.09.
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 4.32, whereas BMA's P/E ratio is 35.86. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BMA's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to BMA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check BMA's competition here
TFC-PR vs FLG Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, FLG has a market cap of 5.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while FLG trades at $13.36.
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 4.32, whereas FLG's P/E ratio is -27.90. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FLG's ROE of -0.02%. 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 AUB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, AUB has a market cap of 5.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while AUB trades at $39.92.
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 4.32, whereas AUB's P/E ratio is 20.02. 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
TFC-PR vs HOMB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, HOMB has a market cap of 5.8B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while HOMB trades at $29.19.
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 4.32, whereas HOMB's P/E ratio is 12.51. 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 ABCB Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, ABCB has a market cap of 5.7B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while ABCB trades at $82.93.
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 4.32, whereas ABCB's P/E ratio is 13.96. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ABCB's ROE of +0.10%. 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 IFS Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, IFS has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while IFS trades at $50.06.
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 4.32, whereas IFS's P/E ratio is 10.19. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to IFS's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to IFS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check IFS's competition here
TFC-PR vs OZK Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, OZK has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while OZK trades at $49.08.
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 4.32, whereas OZK's P/E ratio is 8.04. 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 AX Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, AX has a market cap of 5.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while AX trades at $97.10.
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 4.32, whereas AX's P/E ratio is 12.35. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to AX's ROE of +0.17%. 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 VLYPP Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, VLYPP has a market cap of 5.5B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while VLYPP trades at $25.42.
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 4.32, whereas VLYPP's P/E ratio is 22.97. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to VLYPP's ROE of +0.08%. 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 February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, VLYPO has a market cap of 5.4B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, 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 4.32, whereas VLYPO's P/E ratio is 22.57. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to VLYPO's ROE of +0.08%. 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 AVAL Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, AVAL has a market cap of 5.3B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, while AVAL trades at $4.41.
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 4.32, whereas AVAL's P/E ratio is 11.76. In terms of profitability, TFC-PR's ROE is +0.08%, compared to AVAL's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, TFC-PR is less volatile compared to AVAL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for TFC-PR.Check AVAL's competition here
TFC-PR vs BXS Comparison February 2026
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 24.9B. In comparison, BXS has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, TFC-PR is priced at $19.36, 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 4.32, 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