Atlanta Braves vs Manchester United
BATRA and MANU side by side, both in amusement and recreation services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BATRA and MANU compare
Atlanta Braves grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.5% versus 1.7% for Manchester United).
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | BATRA | MANU |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.6B | – |
| Share price | $56.66 | $22.43 |
| Change, 1 year | 33.8% | 41.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 85.2% | 43.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.48 | 0.69 |
| Employees | – | 150 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 1 | 1 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 4.8× | – |
| P/B | 6.7× | – |
| Fair value | $34.30 | – |
| Margin of safety | −65.2% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% (better) | 1.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 6.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | −13.2% | 3.3% (better) |
| Net margin | −11.1% | – |
| FCF margin | – | 13.7% |
| Return on equity | −15.4% | – |
| Return on invested capital | −6.5% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.51 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 27.47 |
| Interest coverage | −2.1× | 0.3× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.52 (better) | 0.33 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.39 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.2% | 17.3% |
| Held by insiders | 6.7% | 61.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$30.1M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
Go deeper
- BATRA stock overview
- BATRA income statement
- BATRA valuation and score
- MANU stock overview
- MANU income statement
- MANU valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.