vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of HOPE BANCORP INC (HOPE) and PROSPERITY BANCSHARES INC (PB), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
PROSPERITY BANCSHARES INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($275.0M vs $127.4M, roughly 2.2× HOPE BANCORP INC). On growth, HOPE BANCORP INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (24.7% vs 2.7%). HOPE BANCORP INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($73.4M vs $68.5M). Over the past eight quarters, PROSPERITY BANCSHARES INC's revenue compounded faster (7.4% CAGR vs 5.2%).
Bank of Hope is an American bank, based in Los Angeles, that focuses on the Korean American community. The bank was first established on December 30, 1980, under the name Wilshire Bank.
Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered in Houston, Texas with operations in Texas and central Oklahoma. As of December 31, 2019, the company operated 285 branches: 65 in the Houston area, including The Woodlands, Texas; 30 in South Texas, including Corpus Christi, Texas and Victoria, Texas; 75 in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex; 22 in East Texas; 29 in Central Texas, including Austin, Texas and San Antonio; 34 in West Texas, including Lubbock, Texas, Midland–Odess...
HOPE vs PB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $127.4M | $275.0M |
| Net Profit | — | $139.9M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 30.7% | 65.1% |
| Net Margin | — | 50.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 24.7% | 2.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 7.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.27 | $1.48 |
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 | $127.4M | $275.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $126.6M | $273.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $117.5M | $267.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $100.8M | $265.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $102.1M | $267.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $104.8M | $261.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $105.9M | $258.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $115.0M | $238.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $139.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $30.8M | $137.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-24.8M | $135.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.1M | $130.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $130.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $24.2M | $127.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $25.3M | $111.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $25.9M | $110.4M |
| Q4 25 | 30.7% | 65.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 28.7% | 64.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -22.2% | 64.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 27.6% | 62.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.8% | 62.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 30.6% | 62.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 32.6% | 55.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 31.2% | 59.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 50.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.3% | 50.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -21.1% | 50.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.9% | 49.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 48.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 23.1% | 48.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.9% | 43.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 22.5% | 46.3% |
| Q4 25 | $0.27 | $1.48 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.24 | $1.45 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.19 | $1.42 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.17 | $1.37 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.20 | $1.36 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.20 | $1.34 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.21 | $1.17 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.21 | $1.18 |
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 | $2.3B | $7.6B |
| Total Assets | $18.5B | $38.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $2.3B | $7.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.3B | $7.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2B | $7.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.2B | $7.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.1B | $7.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.2B | $7.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.1B | $7.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $7.1B |
| Q4 25 | $18.5B | $38.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.5B | $38.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.5B | $38.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.1B | $38.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $17.1B | $39.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.4B | $40.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $17.4B | $39.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.1B | $38.8B |
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 | $76.8M | $78.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $73.4M | $68.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 57.6% | 24.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.7% | 3.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 0.56× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $151.5M | $517.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $76.8M | $78.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $51.7M | $194.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.4M | $98.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.7M | $178.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $49.6M | $-205.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $63.0M | $274.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-25.6M | $216.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $29.6M | $187.4M |
| Q4 25 | $73.4M | $68.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $47.2M | $185.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.9M | $91.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $24.0M | $171.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $47.4M | $-210.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $60.1M | $270.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-28.1M | $211.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $27.5M | $180.2M |
| Q4 25 | 57.6% | 24.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 37.3% | 67.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.9% | 34.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 23.8% | 64.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 46.4% | -78.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 57.4% | 103.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -26.6% | 81.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 23.9% | 75.6% |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 3.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.6% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.1% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.6% | 2.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.2% | 1.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.8% | 1.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.4% | 1.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.8% | 3.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.56× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.68× | 1.42× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.73× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.26× | 1.37× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -1.58× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.61× | 2.16× | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.01× | 1.94× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.15× | 1.70× |
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.
