Webster Financial holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Pinnacle Financial Partners still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Webster Financial is in better shape — its trend is intact while Pinnacle Financial Partners's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Webster Financial's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
Most of the lead runs through stability, while growth acts as a real counterweight. Webster Financial Corporation leads by 8 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Banks - Regional
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. PNFP and WBS share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how PNFP and Webster Financial each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup is mixed: neither company clearly combines the stronger profile with the more supportive price setup.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where PNFP and WBS each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Pinnacle Financial Partners still pushes back on growth by a very wide margin, which keeps the read from becoming one-way.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the PNFP vs WBS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how PNFP and WBS 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.
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.