vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of FNB CORP/PA/ (FNB) and HANCOCK WHITNEY CORP (HWC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
FNB CORP/PA/ is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($366.0M vs $295.0M, roughly 1.2× HANCOCK WHITNEY CORP). FNB CORP/PA/ runs the higher net margin — 45.9% vs 16.1%, a 29.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, FNB CORP/PA/ posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (13.7% vs -19.7%). Over the past eight quarters, FNB CORP/PA/'s revenue compounded faster (7.1% CAGR vs 4.5%).
FNB Corporation is a diversified financial services corporation based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the holding company for its largest subsidiary, First National Bank. As of December 31, 2025, FNB has total assets of more than $50 billion. FNB's market coverage spans several major metropolitan areas, including Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Cleveland, Ohio; Washington, D.C.; Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham and the Piedmont Triad in North Carolina; and Charleston, South Carolina...
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.
FNB vs HWC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $366.0M | $295.0M |
| Net Profit | $168.0M | $47.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 45.1% | — |
| Net Margin | 45.9% | 16.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 13.7% | -19.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 52.7% | -62.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.47 | $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 | — | $295.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $366.0M | $282.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $359.0M | $279.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $348.0M | $277.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $323.0M | $269.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $322.0M | $273.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $323.0M | $271.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $316.0M | $270.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | $47.4M | ||
| Q4 25 | $168.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $150.0M | $127.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $130.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $117.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $110.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $110.0M | $115.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $123.0M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 45.1% | 56.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 52.9% | 57.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 47.7% | 52.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 45.8% | 55.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 31.7% | 55.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 43.3% | 53.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 49.7% | 53.6% |
| Q1 26 | — | 16.1% | ||
| Q4 25 | 45.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 41.8% | 45.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 36.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 34.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 34.1% | 42.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 38.9% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.57 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.47 | $1.48 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.41 | $1.49 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.36 | $1.32 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.32 | $1.38 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.31 | $1.40 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.30 | $1.33 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.34 | $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 | $2.5B | $223.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.9B | $1.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $6.8B | — |
| Total Assets | $50.2B | $35.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.28× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $223.7M | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.9B | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $199.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1B | $210.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $210.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.5B | $210.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $210.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $236.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0B | $236.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $6.8B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.6B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.5B | $4.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.4B | $4.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.3B | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.2B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.1B | $3.9B |
| Q1 26 | — | $35.5B | ||
| Q4 25 | $50.2B | $35.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.9B | $35.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $49.7B | $35.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $49.0B | $34.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $48.6B | $35.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $48.0B | $35.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $47.7B | $35.4B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.28× | 0.04× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.32× | 0.05× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.41× | 0.05× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.39× | 0.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.48× | 0.05× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.40× | 0.06× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.33× | 0.06× |
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 | $128.0M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $99.0M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 27.0% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 7.9% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.76× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $376.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $128.0M | $153.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $167.0M | $158.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $123.0M | $125.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.0M | $104.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $326.0M | $191.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-14.0M | $162.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $85.0M | $105.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $99.0M | $145.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $149.0M | $155.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $85.0M | $122.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $43.0M | $100.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $278.0M | $188.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-46.0M | $158.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $55.0M | $103.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 27.0% | 51.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 41.5% | 55.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 24.4% | 44.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.3% | 37.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 86.3% | 69.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -14.2% | 58.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.4% | 38.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 7.9% | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.0% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.9% | 1.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.5% | 1.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.9% | 1.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.9% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.5% | 0.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.76× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.11× | 1.25× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.95× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.55× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.96× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -0.13× | 1.41× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.69× | — |
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.
