BGC vs Tradeweb Markets
BGC and TW side by side, both in security & commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges & services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BGC and TW compare
Tradeweb Markets is the larger company, worth 5.3 times as much as BGC ($28.7B against $5.4B).
On earnings, BGC is cheaper: it trades at 27.9× trailing earnings, against 28.8× for Tradeweb Markets.
BGC grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (27.6% versus 14.4% for Tradeweb Markets).
Tradeweb Markets keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 39.8% compared with 6.0% at BGC.
Both pay dividends: BGC yields 0.70% and Tradeweb Markets 0.44%.
Tradeweb Markets scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 15 for BGC), 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 | BGC | TW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.4B | $28.7B |
| Share price | $11.42 | $122.54 |
| Change, 1 year | 23.2% | 16.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 122% | 29.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.99 | 0.66 |
| Employees | 4,560 | 1,569 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 27.9× (better) | 28.8× |
| P/S | 1.6× (better) | 12.6× |
| P/B | 4.9× | 4.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.4× (better) | 21.8× |
| P/FCF | 11.2× (better) | 24.8× |
| PEG | 0.83 | 0.78 (better) |
| FCF yield | 8.9% (better) | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $11.11 | $131.06 |
| Margin of safety | −2.8% | 6.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 27.6% (better) | 14.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.4% | 18.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 33.6% | 44.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 36.7% | 45.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.9% | 33.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 44.1% |
| Net margin | 6.0% | 39.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.7% | 50.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 19.5% (better) | 14.1% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 17.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.60 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.65 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 490× |
| Altman Z-score | 1.11 | 16.65 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.70% (better) | 0.44% |
| Payout ratio | 19.5% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −14.0% | 8.4% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 4.1% (better) | 1.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.8% (better) | 2.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.4% | 50.0% |
| Held by insiders | 48.6% | 51.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$95.5K (better) | −$44.6M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.1% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- BGC stock overview
- BGC income statement
- BGC valuation and score
- TW stock overview
- TW income statement
- TW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.