Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FLG scored 71.0, OZK scored 76.0 — OZK leads.
Compare another set
FLG
Flagstar Bank, National Association
Banks - Regional · Financial strength
39.9Fin
$11.32 · $4.7B
fundamentals as of
Strength gap
35.7
OZK leads
OZK
Bank OZK
Banks - Regional · Financial strength
75.6Fin
$44.41 · $4.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthOZK+4.2%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FLG
OZK
-20.2%F
Rev
+4.2%C+
—
P/E
7.3xA
0.6%C
ROE
11.3%B
0.62A
P/B
0.82A-
0.3%C
Yield
4.4%B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
The companies
FLGFlagstar Bank, National Association
Banks - Regional · $11.32 · beta 1.05
Why now
Banks - Regional · market cap $4.7b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $15.44 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -20% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. PEG 0.78 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $15.59 (implying +38% upside).
Moat
Financial moat — scale of deposit base / underwriting franchise plus regulatory capital advantages. The largest players compound book value through cycles that erase smaller competitors.
Risk
Revenue contracting -20% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Net margin 2.4% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 1% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
OZKBank OZK
Banks - Regional · $44.41 · beta 0.91
Why now
Banks - Regional · market cap $4.8b. 17% off the 52-week high of $53.39. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $53.78 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Net margin 45% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. Financial moat — scale of deposit base / underwriting franchise plus regulatory capital advantages. The largest players compound book value through cycles that erase smaller competitors.
Risk
Balance-sheet financial — book value, net interest margin, and credit loss provisions are the lever points; a rates regime change or a deterioration in the loan book moves the stock more than EPS does.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Common questions
Is OZK or FLG the better stock?
OZK scores higher: OZK 76.0, FLG 71.0 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
How are OZK and FLG scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.