vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CAPITAL CITY BANK GROUP INC (CCBG) and VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP (VLY), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($464.9M vs $43.4M, roughly 10.7× CAPITAL CITY BANK GROUP INC). VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP runs the higher net margin — 31.6% vs 42.0%, a 10.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.9% vs 5.5%). VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($187.5M vs $9.9M). Over the past eight quarters, VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP's revenue compounded faster (8.7% CAGR vs 6.3%).
Texas Capital Bank is a bank headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The bank has branches located in every major city in Texas. Its parent bank holding company is Texas Capital Bancshares. It also operates an online-only banking division, Bask Bank.
North Valley Bancorp was a bank holding company headquartered in Redding, California. The company operated 22 branches. The company was acquired by TriCo Bancshares in October 2014, in a merger valued at more than $178 million.
CCBG vs VLY — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $43.4M | $464.9M |
| Net Profit | $13.7M | $195.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 42.9% | 47.7% |
| Net Margin | 31.6% | 42.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 5.5% | 9.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 4.7% | 68.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.80 | $0.33 |
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 | $43.4M | $464.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $43.6M | $446.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $43.2M | $432.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $41.5M | $420.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $41.1M | $423.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $40.2M | $410.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $39.3M | $401.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $38.4M | $393.5M |
| Q4 25 | $13.7M | $195.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.9M | $163.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $15.0M | $133.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $16.9M | $106.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.1M | $115.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.1M | $97.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.2M | $70.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.6M | $96.3M |
| Q4 25 | 42.9% | 47.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 48.4% | 47.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 46.4% | 40.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 52.9% | 33.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 42.3% | 21.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 38.8% | 30.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 43.9% | 23.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 40.0% | 32.9% |
| Q4 25 | 31.6% | 42.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.6% | 36.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 34.8% | 30.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 40.6% | 25.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 31.8% | 27.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 32.6% | 23.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 36.0% | 17.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 32.7% | 24.5% |
| Q4 25 | $0.80 | $0.33 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.93 | $0.28 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.88 | $0.22 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.99 | $0.18 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.78 | $0.20 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.77 | $0.18 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.83 | $0.13 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.74 | $0.18 |
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 | $552.9M | $7.8B |
| Total Assets | $4.4B | $64.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $552.9M | $7.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $540.6M | $7.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $526.4M | $7.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $512.6M | $7.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $495.3M | $7.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $476.5M | $7.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $461.0M | $6.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $448.3M | $6.7B |
| Q4 25 | $4.4B | $64.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.3B | $63.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.4B | $62.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.5B | $61.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.3B | $62.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.2B | $62.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $62.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.3B | $61.0B |
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 | $11.6M | $196.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $9.9M | $187.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 22.9% | 40.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.7% | 2.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.84× | 1.01× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $80.0M | $325.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $11.6M | $196.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.6M | $5.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $32.6M | $159.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.9M | $-17.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.2M | $392.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.8M | $-157.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.9M | $214.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $14.6M | $99.5M |
| Q4 25 | $9.9M | $187.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $19.8M | $2.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $30.8M | $156.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $19.5M | $-20.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.0M | $385.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.5M | $-160.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $23.0M | $211.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.4M | $95.9M |
| Q4 25 | 22.9% | 40.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 45.5% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 71.3% | 36.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 46.9% | -4.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 21.9% | 91.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.1% | -39.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 58.5% | 52.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 32.4% | 24.4% |
| Q4 25 | 3.7% | 2.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.0% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.3% | 0.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.7% | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | 1.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.6% | 0.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.0% | 0.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.8% | 0.9% |
| Q4 25 | 0.84× | 1.01× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.35× | 0.03× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.17× | 1.20× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.30× | -0.16× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.86× | 3.39× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.97× | -1.61× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.76× | 3.04× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.17× | 1.03× |
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.
