vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of COMMERCE BANCSHARES INC /MO/ (CBSH) and HANCOCK WHITNEY CORP (HWC), 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 ($475.7M vs $295.0M, roughly 1.6× HANCOCK WHITNEY CORP). COMMERCE BANCSHARES INC /MO/ runs the higher net margin — 29.8% vs 16.1%, a 13.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, COMMERCE BANCSHARES INC /MO/ posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.1% vs -19.7%).
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.
Hancock Whitney Corp. is an American bank holding company headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi. It operates 237 branches in Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. The bank is the official bank of the New Orleans Saints and issues the official debit card. The bank is also the official bank of LSU Athletics and the Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns, being the exclusive provider of credit cards for the LSU Tigers, as well as debit cards for both athletic brands.
CBSH vs HWC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $475.7M | $295.0M |
| Net Profit | $141.6M | $47.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | — |
| Net Margin | 29.8% | 16.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.1% | -19.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 0.7% | -62.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.96 | $0.57 |
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.
| Q1 26 | $475.7M | $295.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $283.2M | $282.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $0 | $279.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $0 | $277.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $0 | $269.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $266.6M | $273.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $0 | $271.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $0 | $270.4M |
| Q1 26 | $141.6M | $47.4M | ||
| Q4 25 | $140.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $141.5M | $127.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $152.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $131.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $136.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $138.0M | $115.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $139.6M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 64.7% | 56.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 57.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 52.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 55.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 65.2% | 55.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 53.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 53.6% |
| Q1 26 | 29.8% | 16.1% | ||
| Q4 25 | 49.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 45.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 51.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 42.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | $0.96 | $0.57 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.86 | $1.48 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.06 | $1.49 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.14 | $1.32 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.98 | $1.38 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.87 | $1.40 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.07 | $1.33 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.07 | $1.31 |
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 | — | $223.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $4.3B | — |
| Total Assets | $35.7B | $35.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $223.7M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $199.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $210.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $210.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $210.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $210.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $236.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $236.4M |
| Q1 26 | $4.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.8B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.8B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.6B | $4.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.5B | $4.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.4B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.1B | $3.9B |
| Q1 26 | $35.7B | $35.5B | ||
| Q4 25 | $32.9B | $35.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $32.3B | $35.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $32.3B | $35.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $32.4B | $34.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.0B | $35.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $31.5B | $35.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $30.6B | $35.4B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.04× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.06× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.06× |
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.
