vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CULLEN/FROST BANKERS, INC. (CFR) and Dime Community Bancshares, Inc. /NY/ (DCOM), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CULLEN/FROST BANKERS, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($32.4M vs $5.4M, roughly 6.0× Dime Community Bancshares, Inc. /NY/). On growth, Dime Community Bancshares, Inc. /NY/ posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (37.3% vs 15.9%). Over the past eight quarters, CULLEN/FROST BANKERS, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (14.2% CAGR vs 9.1%).
Frost Bank is an American bank based in San Antonio that is chartered in Texas, with 200 branches and 1,750 automated teller machines in the state. It is the primary subsidiary of Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc., a bank holding company. It is one of the 60 largest banks of the country by total assets.
The Dime Community Bank, originally known as the Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh, is a local, FDIC-insured bank headquartered in Hauppauge, New York. Founded in 1864, the bank was originally based in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, and continues to operate with a strong market presence in this area. In 2017, Dime moved its headquarters to Brooklyn Heights. On Monday, February 1, 2021, Bridge Bancorp Inc. and Dime Community Bancshares successfully closed on a merger of ...
CFR vs DCOM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $32.4M | $5.4M |
| Net Profit | $166.3M | — |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | — |
| Net Margin | 513.8% | — |
| Revenue YoY | 15.9% | 37.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | 7.4% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.56 | $0.68 |
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 | $32.4M | $5.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $31.4M | $5.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $29.2M | $4.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $28.6M | $4.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $27.9M | $3.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $27.4M | $4.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $26.1M | $4.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $24.8M | $4.5M |
| Q4 25 | $166.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $174.4M | $27.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $157.0M | $29.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $150.9M | $21.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $154.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $146.5M | $13.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $145.5M | $18.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $135.7M | $17.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -433.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 513.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 554.6% | 531.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 538.6% | 639.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 527.3% | 462.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 554.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 534.4% | 312.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 557.2% | 465.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 547.2% | 389.3% |
| Q4 25 | $2.56 | $0.68 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.67 | $0.59 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.39 | $0.64 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.30 | $0.45 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.36 | $-0.58 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.24 | $0.29 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.21 | $0.43 | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.06 | $0.41 |
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 | $4.6B | $1.5B |
| Total Assets | $53.0B | $15.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $4.6B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.5B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.1B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.9B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.1B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.7B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.6B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $53.0B | $15.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $52.5B | $14.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $51.4B | $14.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $52.0B | $14.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $52.5B | $14.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $51.0B | $13.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $48.8B | $13.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $49.5B | $13.5B |
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 | $180.7M | $46.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $138.2M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 427.1% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 131.4% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.09× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $127.3M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $180.7M | $46.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $248.6M | $52.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $140.8M | $23.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-296.1M | $65.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $64.3M | $89.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $307.2M | $-33.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $129.6M | $12.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $488.4M | $30.7M |
| Q4 25 | $138.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $211.7M | $51.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $114.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-337.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $26.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $281.9M | $-34.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $103.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $450.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | 427.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 673.2% | 983.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 392.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -1177.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 95.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1028.3% | -799.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 394.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1815.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | 131.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 117.4% | 16.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 90.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 143.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 134.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 92.4% | 18.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 101.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 154.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.09× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.43× | 1.88× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.90× | 0.78× | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.96× | 3.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.42× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.10× | -2.50× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.89× | 0.68× | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.60× | 1.74× |
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.
