vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of COMMERCE BANCSHARES INC /MO/ (CBSH) and CULLEN/FROST BANKERS, INC. (CFR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
COMMERCE BANCSHARES INC /MO/ is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($283.2M vs $32.4M, roughly 8.8× CULLEN/FROST BANKERS, INC.). CULLEN/FROST BANKERS, INC. runs the higher net margin — 49.7% vs 513.8%, a 464.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, CULLEN/FROST BANKERS, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.9% vs 6.2%). COMMERCE BANCSHARES INC /MO/ produced more free cash flow last quarter ($252.6M vs $138.2M).
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. is a regional bank holding company headquartered in Missouri, with principal offices in Kansas City and St. Louis. It is the corporate parent of Commerce Bank, which offers a diversified line of financial services, including business and personal banking, wealth management and investments through its affiliated companies.
Frost Bank is an American bank based in San Antonio that is chartered in Texas, with 200 branches and 1,750 automated teller machines in the state. It is the primary subsidiary of Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc., a bank holding company. It is one of the 60 largest banks of the country by total assets.
CBSH vs CFR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $283.2M | $32.4M |
| Net Profit | $140.7M | $166.3M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 64.7% | — |
| Net Margin | 49.7% | 513.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.2% | 15.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 3.3% | 7.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.86 | $2.56 |
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 | $283.2M | $32.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $0 | $31.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $0 | $29.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $0 | $28.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $266.6M | $27.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $0 | $27.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $0 | $26.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $0 | $24.8M |
| Q4 25 | $140.7M | $166.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $141.5M | $174.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $152.5M | $157.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $131.6M | $150.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $136.1M | $154.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $138.0M | $146.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $139.6M | $145.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $112.7M | $135.7M |
| Q4 25 | 64.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 65.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 49.7% | 513.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 554.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 538.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 527.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 51.0% | 554.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 534.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 557.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 547.2% |
| Q4 25 | $0.86 | $2.56 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.06 | $2.67 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.14 | $2.39 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.98 | $2.30 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.87 | $2.36 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.07 | $2.24 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.07 | $2.21 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.86 | $2.06 |
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 | $3.8B | $4.6B |
| Total Assets | $32.9B | $53.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $3.8B | $4.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.8B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.6B | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.5B | $4.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.4B | $4.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.1B | $3.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.9B | $3.6B |
| Q4 25 | $32.9B | $53.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $32.3B | $52.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $32.3B | $51.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $32.4B | $52.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.0B | $52.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $31.5B | $51.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $30.6B | $48.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $30.4B | $49.5B |
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 | $266.3M | $180.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $252.6M | $138.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 89.2% | 427.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 4.9% | 131.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.89× | 1.09× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $592.4M | $127.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $266.3M | $180.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $129.0M | $248.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $111.2M | $140.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $138.6M | $-296.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-136.7M | $64.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $431.7M | $307.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $147.4M | $129.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $135.5M | $488.4M |
| Q4 25 | $252.6M | $138.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $113.3M | $211.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $100.5M | $114.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $126.0M | $-337.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-150.7M | $26.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $419.1M | $281.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $138.9M | $103.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $124.5M | $450.3M |
| Q4 25 | 89.2% | 427.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 673.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 392.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -1177.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -56.5% | 95.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1028.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 394.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1815.9% |
| Q4 25 | 4.9% | 131.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 117.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 90.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 143.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.3% | 134.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 92.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 101.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 154.0% |
| Q4 25 | 1.89× | 1.09× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.91× | 1.43× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.73× | 0.90× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.05× | -1.96× | ||
| Q4 24 | -1.00× | 0.42× | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.13× | 2.10× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.06× | 0.89× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.20× | 3.60× |
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.
