Home Compare BBVA.MC vs C
Stock Comparison · Industry comparison · Banks - Diversified

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria vs Citigroup: Which Stock Looks Stronger in 2026?

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Citigroup still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.

The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (BBVA.MC: STOXX 600, C: S&P 500).

Updated 2026-05-17

The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. leads by 10 points on the overall comparison score.

INDUSTRY COMPARISON

Both operate in: Banks - Diversified

This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. BBVA.MC and C share the same industry classification.

For a similarity-based comparison, see how BBVA.MC and Citigroup each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.

Peer-Relative Score
BBVA.MC
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
69
Peer-Score
Signal qualityMedium
Peer basis: STOXX 600
vs
C
Citigroup Inc.
59
Peer-Score
Signal qualitylow
Peer basis: S&P 500

Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.

Score differences across key dimensions.

Dimension spread: BBVA.MC vs C Profitability 75 35 Stability 42 31 Valuation 80 81 Growth 72 91 BBVA.MC C
Gap Ranking
#1 Profitability +40
#2 Growth +19
#3 Stability +11
#4 Valuation +1
Price Setup

Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.

Price setup map for BBVA.MC and C Stronger + cheaper Stronger + richer Weaker + cheaper Weaker + richer BBVA.MCC Relative valuation Structural strength

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.

Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.

Entry today — historical context

Where BBVA.MC and C each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.

BASED ON 5-YEAR HISTORY BBVA.MC Elevated · above norm 0th 50th 100th 3 pct gap C Elevated · above norm 0th 50th 100th 95th 98th
BBVA.MC (95th percentile) and C (98th percentile) both sit in the upper portion of their own 5-year ranges. The historical entry context is broadly similar for both. This reflects entry timing, not which company is structurally stronger.

Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.

Relative Position vs Comparable Companies
Profitability
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. ranks near the top of the group on profitability; Citigroup Inc. sits in the weaker half.
Growth
On growth, the same pattern holds: both rank well, but Citigroup Inc. still sits higher.
Profitability — Dominant Gap
BBVA.MC
75
C
35
Gap+40in favour of BBVA.MC

The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 20.8-point operating margin advantage.

What keeps the gap from being one-sided

Earnings growth also leans toward C, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.

What this means for the comparison

The profitability lead is decisive, but growth still runs counter to it — the result is clear, not entirely one-sided.

Explore full peer positioning in AssetNext

Break down the BBVA.MC vs C comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.

Explore full breakdown →
Similar profitability-driven comparisons

Explore how BBVA.MC and C each compare against other companies in their peer groups.

Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.

How AssetNext Peer Scores Work

AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.

Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.

Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.

Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.