CFG vs MTB: Correlation
Citizens Financial Group (CFG) and M&T Bank (MTB) show a very strong relationship: their 3-year correlation of weekly returns is 0.89.
Data as of 2026-08-27 · refreshed every trading day · weekly returns · methodology
How correlated are CFG and MTB?
Over the past 3 years, CFG and MTB moved with a correlation of 0.89, which is very strong, meaning they move nearly in lockstep. Recent behaviour matches the longer record: 0.91 over 1 year against 0.89 over 3. Over 5 years the correlation is 0.82, and the annualized covariance of weekly returns is 729.5 %².
By 3-year correlation, MTB places #9 of the 46 assets tracked against CFG. Correlation aside, the last 12 months split them widely, with CFG ahead by 17.6 points (+39.3% versus +21.7%). On a rolling one-year basis the correlation drifted between 0.64 and 0.93, a moderate band.
How is this computed?
Pearson correlation on weekly returns: ρ(A,B) = cov(rA, rB) / (σA · σB), over windows of 52, 156 and 260 weeks. Covariance is annualized (×52) and expressed in %². Full definitions on the methodology page.
CFG vs MTB: side by side
| CFG (Citizens Financial Group) | MTB (M&T Bank) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year return | +39.3% | +21.7% |
| 5-year return | +98.3% | +101.3% |
| Volatility (ann.) | 31.0% | 26.5% |
| Beta vs S&P 500 | 1.16 | 0.83 |
| Max drawdown (3Y) | -29.1% | -28.5% |
| Market cap | $29.6B | $34.5B |
| P/E (trailing) | 15.4 | 12.8 |
| Dividend yield | 2.55% | 2.48% |
| Sector / category | Financials | Financials |
Year-by-year returns
| Year | CFG | MTB |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | -13.4% | -2.9% |
| 2023 | -11.0% | -1.7% |
| 2024 | +38.0% | +41.7% |
| 2025 | +38.6% | +10.4% |
| 2026 | +22.7% | +20.1% |
Calendar-year price returns; the current year is year-to-date as of the data date above.
Are CFG and MTB good diversifiers for each other?
No: a correlation of 0.89 means CFG and MTB tend to fall together, which is precisely when diversification is supposed to help.
FAQ
What is the correlation between CFG and MTB?
As of 2026-08-27, the correlation of weekly returns between CFG and MTB is 0.89 over 3 years, 0.91 over 1 year and 0.82 over 5 years.
Is MTB a good diversifier for CFG?
No: a correlation of 0.89 means CFG and MTB tend to fall together, which is precisely when diversification is supposed to help.
What does a correlation of 0.89 mean?
On the −1 to +1 scale, 0.89 describes how much the two returns move together: +1 is lockstep, 0 is independence, negative values mean opposite directions. It says nothing about which performed better.
Use this data
$ curl https://www.pairbook.io/api/v1/pairs/cfg-vs-mtb.json
Markdown for the live badge, attribution link included:
[](https://www.pairbook.io/pair/cfg-vs-mtb/)
No key needed, free to use. Full endpoint list in the API documentation.
Related comparisons
Hubs: CFG correlations · MTB correlations
