vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of FIRST HAWAIIAN, INC. (FHB) and WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION (WAL), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
FIRST HAWAIIAN, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($225.9M vs $64.8M, roughly 3.5× WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION). WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION runs the higher net margin — 31.0% vs 441.5%, a 410.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (189.3% vs 20.1%). Over the past eight quarters, WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION's revenue compounded faster (119.1% CAGR vs 4.8%).
First Hawaiian, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. Its principal subsidiary, First Hawaiian Bank, founded in 1858, is Hawaiʻi’s oldest and largest financial institution headquartered in Honolulu at the First Hawaiian Center. The bank has 57 branches throughout Hawaiʻi, three in Guam and one in Saipan. It offers banking services to consumer and commercial customers, including deposit products, lending services and wealth management, insurance, private banking an...
Western Alliance Bancorporation is a regional bank holding company headquartered in Phoenix. It is on the list of largest banks in the United States and is ranked 97th on the Forbes list of America's Best Banks.
FHB vs WAL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $225.9M | $64.8M |
| Net Profit | $69.9M | $286.1M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 41.2% | — |
| Net Margin | 31.0% | 441.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 20.1% | 189.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | 33.2% | 31.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.56 | $2.59 |
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 | $225.9M | $64.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $226.4M | $24.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $217.5M | $23.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $211.0M | $23.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $188.1M | $22.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $210.0M | $15.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $204.6M | $16.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $205.8M | $13.5M |
| Q4 25 | $69.9M | $286.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $73.8M | $253.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $73.2M | $230.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $59.2M | $199.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $52.5M | $216.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.5M | $199.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $61.9M | $193.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $54.2M | $177.4M |
| Q4 25 | 41.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 42.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 40.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 36.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 34.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 36.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 39.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 34.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | 31.0% | 441.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 32.6% | 1034.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.7% | 980.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.1% | 865.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 27.9% | 968.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 29.3% | 1314.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.3% | 1145.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 26.3% | 1314.1% |
| Q4 25 | $0.56 | $2.59 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.59 | $2.28 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.58 | $2.07 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.47 | $1.79 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.41 | $1.94 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.48 | $1.80 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.48 | $1.75 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.42 | $1.60 |
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 | — | $1.4B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.8B | $7.7B |
| Total Assets | $24.0B | $92.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.18× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $436.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $441.0M |
| Q4 25 | $2.8B | $7.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.7B | $7.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $7.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $6.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $6.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.6B | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.6B | $6.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.5B | $6.2B |
| Q4 25 | $24.0B | $92.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $24.1B | $91.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.8B | $86.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $23.7B | $83.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $23.8B | $80.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $23.8B | $80.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.0B | $80.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $24.3B | $77.0B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.18× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.39× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.41× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.23× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.36× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.21× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.07× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.07× |
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 | $104.9M | $-69.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $100.0M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 44.3% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.2% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.50× | -0.24× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $303.3M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $104.9M | $-69.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $57.1M | $-597.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $136.4M | $-357.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $36.7M | $-1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $113.8M | $-621.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $58.9M | $-1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $78.2M | $-745.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $66.6M | $-306.5M |
| Q4 25 | $100.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $125.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $28.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $102.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $52.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $72.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $61.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | 44.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 57.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 54.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 24.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 35.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 30.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.50× | -0.24× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.77× | -2.36× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.86× | -1.55× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.62× | -8.31× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.17× | -2.87× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.96× | -5.35× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.26× | -3.85× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.23× | -1.73× |
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.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
FHB
Segment breakdown not available.
WAL
| Disbursements And Escrow Fees | $50.4M | 78% |
| Interchange Fees | $9.1M | 14% |
| Other | $5.3M | 8% |
