Which has the lower trailing P/E, CFG or RJF?

RJF has the lower trailing P/E: CFG trades at 14.25 and RJF at 13.93. P/E is one valuation measure and does not by itself establish which business is cheaper.

Which has grown faster, CFG or RJF?

Over the past five years, RJF grew revenue faster — CFG at a 9.71% CAGR versus RJF at 13.02%.

Does CFG or RJF pay a bigger dividend?

CFG yields 2.61% and RJF yields 1.22% based on trailing dividends and the latest price.

Is CFG or RJF more profitable?

CFG runs the higher net margin — CFG at 18.54% versus RJF at 13.62%.

How have CFG and RJF total returns compared?

Over the past 10 years, CFG delivered 15.24% and RJF delivered 18.02% annualized total return. Past performance doesn't predict future results.

Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (CFG) vs Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF)

A side-by-side comparison of Citizens Financial Group, Inc. and Raymond James Financial, Inc. across valuation, profitability, dividends, and growth — built entirely from reported fundamentals, as of September 13, 2026. Differences are shown without an overall score or investment verdict.

CFG

Citizens Financial Group, Inc.

$27.71B

$65.53Financial ServicesDelayed quote: Sep 25, 2026, 4:00 PM EDT

RJF

Raymond James Financial, Inc.

$30.71B

$159.87Financial ServicesDelayed quote: Sep 25, 2026, 4:00 PM EDT

Total return — CFG vs RJF

growth of $100 · dividends reinvested · last 10y

CFG +316.7% (+15.3%/yr)RJF +423.2% (+18.0%/yr)RJF compounded faster over this window

CFG RJF

CFG vs RJF: by the numbers

•RJF is the larger company ($30.71B vs $27.71B market cap).
•RJF trades at the lower trailing earnings multiple (13.93 vs 14.25 P/E), one valuation lens rather than an overall verdict.
•CFG converts more revenue to profit (18.54% vs 13.62% net margin).
•RJF grew revenue faster over the past five years (13.02% vs 9.71% CAGR).
•CFG pays the higher dividend yield (2.61% vs 1.22%).

Metrics side by side

Valuation

Metric	CFG	RJF
P/E ratio	14.25	13.93
Forward P/E	12.35	13.16
P/S ratio	2.42	1.81
P/B ratio	1.06	2.42

Profitability

Metric	CFG	RJF
Gross margin	72.37%	83.54%
Operating margin	23.64%	28.66%
Net margin	18.54%	13.62%
ROE	8.12%	18.16%

Dividends

Metric	CFG	RJF
Dividend yield	2.61%	1.22%
Payout ratio	40.00%	18.47%

Growth (annualized)

Metric	CFG	RJF
Revenue CAGR (5Y)	9.71%	13.02%
EPS CAGR (5Y)	11.93%	21.61%
Total return CAGR (5Y)	15.10%	15.53%

Frequently asked

Which has the lower trailing P/E, CFG or RJF?: RJF has the lower trailing P/E: CFG trades at 14.25 and RJF at 13.93. P/E is one valuation measure and does not by itself establish which business is cheaper.
Which has grown faster, CFG or RJF?: Over the past five years, RJF grew revenue faster — CFG at a 9.71% CAGR versus RJF at 13.02%.
Does CFG or RJF pay a bigger dividend?: CFG yields 2.61% and RJF yields 1.22% based on trailing dividends and the latest price.
Is CFG or RJF more profitable?: CFG runs the higher net margin — CFG at 18.54% versus RJF at 13.62%.
How have CFG and RJF total returns compared?: Over the past 10 years, CFG delivered 15.24% and RJF delivered 18.02% annualized total return. Past performance doesn't predict future results.

Go deeper

Full CFG analysis Full RJF analysis Interactive comparison tool

Dig into the metrics

Citizens Financial P/E ratio Raymond James Financial P/E ratio Citizens Financial dividend yield Raymond James Financial dividend yield Citizens Financial ROE Raymond James Financial ROE Citizens Financial operating margin Raymond James Financial operating margin Citizens Financial revenue growth Raymond James Financial revenue growth

Citizens Financial & Raymond James Financial appear in these rankings

Highest Dividend Yield Stocks Highest FCF Yield Stocks Highest 10-Year Total Return Stocks Lowest P/E Ratio Stocks

Figures are sourced from reported fundamentals and the latest end-of-day price. This comparison is informational only and is not investment advice. Past performance does not predict future results. See our methodology. Compiled by TGMCharts Research · data verified September 13, 2026.