vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of HANCOCK WHITNEY CORP (HWC) and UMB FINANCIAL CORP (UMBF), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
UMB FINANCIAL CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($522.5M vs $295.0M, roughly 1.8× HANCOCK WHITNEY CORP). UMB FINANCIAL CORP runs the higher net margin — 16.1% vs 41.2%, a 25.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, UMB FINANCIAL CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (94.3% vs -19.7%). Over the past eight quarters, UMB FINANCIAL CORP's revenue compounded faster (47.7% CAGR vs 4.5%).
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.
UMB Financial Corporation is an American financial services company headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. It offers comprehensive financial services, including deposit solutions like checking and savings accounts, credit services including home mortgages, auto loans, business loans and credit cards, as well as investing and wealth management. UMB serves individuals, companies and institutions across the U.S. and in Ireland.
HWC vs UMBF — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $295.0M | $522.5M |
| Net Profit | $47.4M | $215.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | 51.7% |
| Net Margin | 16.1% | 41.2% |
| Revenue YoY | -19.7% | 94.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -62.2% | 79.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.57 | $2.90 |
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 | $282.2M | $522.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $279.7M | $475.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $277.0M | $467.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $269.9M | $397.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $273.6M | $269.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $271.8M | $247.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $270.4M | $245.1M |
| Q1 26 | $47.4M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $215.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $127.5M | $188.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $217.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $81.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $120.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $115.6M | $109.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $101.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 56.1% | 51.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 57.3% | 49.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 52.2% | 58.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 55.3% | 23.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 55.0% | 53.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 53.4% | 54.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 53.6% | 51.8% |
| Q1 26 | 16.1% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 41.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 45.6% | 39.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 46.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 20.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 44.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 42.5% | 44.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 41.3% |
| Q1 26 | $0.57 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.48 | $2.90 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.49 | $2.36 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.32 | $2.82 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.38 | $1.21 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.40 | $2.44 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.33 | $2.23 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.31 | $2.07 |
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 | $7.8B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.6B | $474.2M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $7.7B |
| Total Assets | $35.5B | $73.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.06× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | $223.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $7.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $8.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $11.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $10.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $7.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $5.0B |
| Q1 26 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $199.4M | $474.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $210.7M | $471.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $210.6M | $657.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $210.6M | $654.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $210.5M | $385.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $236.4M | $384.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $236.4M | $384.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.5B | $7.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.5B | $7.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.4B | $7.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.3B | $6.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.1B | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.2B | $3.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.9B | $3.2B |
| Q1 26 | $35.5B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $35.5B | $73.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $35.8B | $71.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $35.2B | $71.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $34.8B | $69.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $35.1B | $50.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $35.2B | $47.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $35.4B | $44.5B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.04× | 0.06× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.05× | 0.06× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.05× | 0.09× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.05× | 0.10× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.05× | 0.11× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.06× | 0.11× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.06× | 0.12× |
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 | — | $106.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $95.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 18.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 2.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 0.49× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $978.1M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $153.0M | $106.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $158.8M | $272.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $125.8M | $285.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $104.2M | $363.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $191.6M | $-66.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $162.5M | $123.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $105.0M | $112.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $145.9M | $95.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $155.0M | $257.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $122.0M | $270.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $100.2M | $354.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $188.8M | $-77.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $158.6M | $117.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $103.7M | $106.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 51.7% | 18.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 55.4% | 54.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 44.0% | 58.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 37.1% | 89.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 69.0% | -28.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 58.3% | 47.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 38.4% | 43.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.5% | 2.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | 3.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.4% | 3.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.5% | 2.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.0% | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.4% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.5% | 2.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.49× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.25× | 1.45× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.31× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.46× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -0.56× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.41× | 1.13× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.11× |
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
HWC
Segment breakdown not available.
UMBF
| Other | $256.7M | 49% |
| Institutional Banking | $107.2M | 21% |
| Commercial Banking | $44.0M | 8% |
| Personal Banking | $34.9M | 7% |
| Credit Card | $26.8M | 5% |
| Brokerage Fees | $17.8M | 3% |
| Deposit Account | $14.8M | 3% |
| Bankcard Fees | $12.8M | 2% |
| Trading And Investment Banking | $6.0M | 1% |
| Other Financial Services | $1.5M | 0% |
