Bread Financial vs Enova International
BFH and ENVA side by side, both in personal credit institutions. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BFH and ENVA compare
Bread Financial and Enova International are about the same size, with market caps of $3.7B and $4.2B.
On earnings, Bread Financial is cheaper: it trades at 7.7× trailing earnings, against 11.7× for Enova International.
Enova International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.1% versus 5.5% for Bread Financial).
Bread Financial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.4% compared with 10.5% at Enova International.
Bread Financial pays a dividend yielding 0.70%; Enova International does not pay one.
Bread Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 10 for Enova International), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | BFH | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.7B | $4.2B |
| Share price | $97.91 | $169.85 |
| Change, 1 year | 54.3% | 31.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 31.7% | 329% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.38 | 1.38 |
| Employees | 6,000 | 1,836 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.7× (better) | 11.7× |
| P/S | 0.9× (better) | 1.1× |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 2.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 4.4× |
| P/FCF | – | 2.1× |
| PEG | 0.22 (better) | 0.51 |
| FCF yield | – | 48.3% |
| Fair value | $94.47 | $235.09 |
| Margin of safety | −3.6% | 27.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% | 20.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.1% | 23.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 13.8% | 30.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 29.2% | 33.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 19.5% (better) | −0.31% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 60.6% |
| Operating margin | – | 24.0% |
| Net margin | 13.4% (better) | 10.5% |
| FCF margin | – | 54.9% |
| Return on equity | 15.9% | 26.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 50.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.3× |
| Altman Z-score | 0.40 | 1.68 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.70% | – |
| Payout ratio | 7.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −7.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 16.0% (better) | 3.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 16.7% (better) | 3.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 3.9% | 5.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.1M (better) | −$72.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.2% | 7.3% |
Go deeper
- BFH stock overview
- BFH income statement
- BFH valuation and score
- ENVA stock overview
- ENVA income statement
- ENVA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.