Home / Banks / Comparison

MUFG vs Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group

Side-by-side credit pricing comparison from Pillar 3 disclosures.

Last updated: March 2026 · Data source: public Pillar 3 disclosures
Verdict:

On a representative BBB+ EUR 25M 5-year term loan, MUFG is the cheaper lender by 2bp in minimum spread. For a EUR 25M facility, that's EUR 4,536 per year.

Bank profiles compared

Metric MUFG
Japan		 Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group
Japan
IRB approachMixedMixed
Cost-to-income57.6%58.2%
Effective tax rate27.0%28.0%
Avg corporate PD1.18%0.90%
Avg LGD unsecured39.6%41.0%
Avg LGD secured20.0%20.0%
Funding spread (bp)12bp11bp
Corporate EADEUR 83386bnEUR 96459bn

Sample RAROC: BBB+ EUR 25M 5Y term loan

Both banks priced on the exact same deal — 150bp spread, 20bp commitment fee, 60-month maturity. Higher RAROC means the bank earns more from this deal. Lower min-spread means the borrower gets a better rate.

Component MUFG Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group
Annual revenueEUR 385,000EUR 385,000
Operating costEUR 154,000EUR 154,000
Expected lossEUR 28,750EUR 28,750
Capital required (FPE)EUR 2,451,320EUR 2,451,320
RAROC (after tax)7.37%7.35%
Min spread for 12% RAROC254bp256bp
This is just one sample deal.

Your actual portfolio has different ratings, sizes, maturities, and collateral. The cheapest bank for one deal isn't always cheapest for another. Upload your real facilities and OpenRAROC will run the same calculation on each, against MUFG, Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, and 57 other banks.

Compare your portfolio

Read more

MUFG full profile Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group full profile All banks RAROC methodology

FAQ: MUFG vs Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group

Which bank is cheaper on corporate credit: MUFG or Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group?
On a BBB+ EUR 25M 5-year term loan, MUFG requires a minimum spread of 254bp to reach a 12% RAROC hurdle, versus 256bp at the other bank — a difference of 2bp on the same deal.
How do MUFG and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group compare on corporate PD?
MUFG reports an EAD-weighted corporate PD of 1.18%, while Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group reports 0.90%. The gap reflects differences in obligor mix and geography rather than underwriting quality.
How do the two banks differ on IRB approach?
MUFG uses Mixed and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group uses Mixed. The IRB approach determines whether internal LGD models or supervisory LGDs apply, which materially affects capital required on every corporate facility.
What deal is used in this comparison?
A single standardised facility: BBB+ rated, EUR 25M drawn on a EUR 30M commitment, 5-year tenor, 150bp spread, 20bp commitment fee. Both banks are priced on this exact deal using their own disclosed Pillar 3 parameters.