vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Ameris Bancorp (ABCB) and Integra Resources Corp. (ITRG), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Ameris Bancorp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($245.3M vs $57.0M, roughly 4.3× Integra Resources Corp.). Ameris Bancorp runs the higher net margin — 44.2% vs -9.6%, a 53.8% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Ameris Bancorp is an American bank holding company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Through its bank subsidiary, Ameris Bank, the company operates full-service branches in Georgia, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, and mortgage-only locations in Georgia, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Tennessee. The company offers online and mobile banking options for both consumers and businesses.
Integra Bank Corporation was the parent of Integra Bank National Association, a retail bank headquartered in Evansville, Indiana that failed on July 29, 2011. As of March 31, 2010, Integra Bank had $2.9 billion in total assets and operated 67 banking centers and 116 ATMs at locations in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. The Second Renaissance Revival building was constructed in 1913, and originally housed the National City Bank.
ABCB vs ITRG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $245.3M | $57.0M |
| Net Profit | $108.4M | $-5.5M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 57.5% | — |
| Net Margin | 44.2% | -9.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 10.6% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 14.8% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.59 | — |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $245.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $238.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $231.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $221.8M | $57.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $221.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $214.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $211.9M | $41.2K | ||
| Q1 24 | $201.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | $108.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $106.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $109.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $87.9M | $-5.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $94.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $99.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $90.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $74.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 26.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 57.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 57.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 61.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 50.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 56.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 58.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 59.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 48.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 44.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 44.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 47.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 39.6% | -9.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 42.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 46.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 42.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 36.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.59 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.54 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.60 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.27 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.35 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.44 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.32 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.08 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $4.1B | — |
| Total Assets | $27.5B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.0B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.8B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.8B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.7B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.6B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.5B | — |
| Q4 25 | $27.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $27.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.7B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $26.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.4B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $26.5B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $25.7B | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $107.0M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $101.2M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 41.3% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.4% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.99× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $369.6M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $107.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $104.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $61.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $116.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $130.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $102.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-97.1M | $5.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | $101.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $100.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $53.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $114.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $126.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $99.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-100.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $15.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | 41.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 42.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 23.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 51.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 56.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 46.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -47.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.99× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.99× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.56× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.33× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.38× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.03× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.07× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.25× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
