MetaCap

Glacier Bancorp (GBCI) vs Park National (PRK)

Head-to-head comparison of performance, valuation, growth, profitability and dividends. Prices delayed 15 minutes; data as of Oct 10, 2026.

Summary

Park National (PRK) has outperformed Glacier Bancorp (GBCI) over the past year, gaining 11.2% versus a loss of 10.2%. Over five years, PRK leads with a +39.8% price change compared with -20.8% for GBCI. Glacier Bancorp is the larger company by market cap ($5.56 billion vs $3.19 billion), about 1.7 times the size.

On valuation, Glacier Bancorp trades at a lower forward P/E (12.0x vs 13.3x for Park National). Glacier Bancorp offers the higher dividend yield (3.09% vs 2.46%). Glacier Bancorp converts more of its revenue into profit, with a net margin of 236.5% versus 27.1%.

Summary generated from market data by MetaCap's automated system. Methodology

Relative performance

GBCI-10.16%PRK+11.22%
+36%+9%-18%
Oct 9, 20251 yearOct 9, 2026
GBCI-22.58%PRK+39.53%
+70%+7%-56%
Oct 4, 20215 yearsOct 5, 2026

Percent change in share price from the first common trading day shown; excludes dividends.

Head-to-head

GBCI versus PRK key metrics
MetricGBCIPRK
Share price$42.73$176.50
Market cap$5.56B$3.19B
1-day change-0.58%-1.10%
YTD return-3.00%+15.98%
1-year return-10.16%+11.22%
5-year return-20.77%+39.80%
P/E ratio (TTM)17.5815.77
Forward P/E11.9713.27
EPS (TTM)$2.43$11.19
Dividend yield3.09%2.46%
Annual dividend$1.32$4.34
Revenue (latest FY)$101.07M$664.42M
Revenue growth (YoY)+7.51%+2.92%
Net income (latest FY)$239.03M$180.07M
Net margin236.49%27.10%
52-week high$54.58$215.00
52-week low$39.90$149.06
Distance from 52-week high-21.71%-17.91%
Analyst consensusbuyhold
Avg. price target upside+29.49%+15.30%
Average volume1.07M102.57K
Shares outstanding130.21M18.06M
Employees4,1251,589
SectorFinanceFinance
IndustryMajor BanksMajor Banks

Highlighted cells mark the higher value for growth, returns, margins and yield, and the lower value for P/E ratios. Highlighting is a mechanical comparison, not a recommendation.

Key differences

  • PRK has outperformed GBCI by 21.4 percentage points over the past year.
  • Glacier Bancorp is more profitable, keeping 236.5 cents of every revenue dollar as net income versus 27.1 cents for Park National.

About Glacier Bancorp

GBCI stock →

Glacier Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Glacier Bank that provides commercial banking services to individuals, small to medium-sized businesses, community organizations, and public entities in the United States.

Finance · Major Banks · 4,125 employees

About Park National

PRK stock →

Park National Corporation operates as the bank holding company for Park National Bank that provides commercial banking and trust services in small and medium population areas in the United States. The company offers deposits for demand, savings, and time accounts; trust and wealth management services; cash management services; safe deposit operations; electronic funds transfers; Internet and mobile banking solutions with bill pay service; credit cards; and various additional banking-related services.

Finance · Major Banks · 1,589 employees

GBCI vs PRK FAQ

Which is bigger, Glacier Bancorp or Park National?

Glacier Bancorp (GBCI) is larger, with a market capitalization of $5.56B compared with $3.19B for Park National (PRK).

Which stock has performed better over the past year, GBCI or PRK?

PRK returned +11.22% over the past 12 months, compared with -10.16% for GBCI (price return, excluding dividends). Past performance does not predict future results.

Which has the lower P/E ratio, GBCI or PRK?

PRK has the lower trailing P/E at 15.8, versus 17.6 for GBCI. A lower P/E is not by itself a sign of a better investment; it can reflect slower expected growth or higher risk.

Which pays a higher dividend, Glacier Bancorp or Park National?

Glacier Bancorp has the higher yield at 3.09%, compared with 2.46% for Park National.

Are Glacier Bancorp and Park National in the same industry?

Yes. Both are classified in the Major Banks industry within the Finance sector.

More comparisons