Broadridge Financial Solutions vs Global Payments
BR and GPN side by side, both in miscellaneous business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BR and GPN compare
Global Payments is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Broadridge Financial Solutions ($25.6B against $20.4B).
Global Payments grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (32.5% versus 8.5% for Broadridge Financial Solutions).
Broadridge Financial Solutions keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.0% compared with −9.1% at Global Payments.
Both pay dividends: Broadridge Financial Solutions yields 2.2% and Global Payments 1.0%.
Broadridge Financial Solutions scores higher on the StockData Score (23 against 10 for Global Payments), 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 | BR | GPN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $20.4B | $25.6B |
| Share price | $178.82 | $96.84 |
| Change, 1 year | −18.7% | 22.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 2.9% | −29.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.83 | 1.22 |
| Employees | 16K | 26K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 23 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.6× | – |
| P/S | 2.7× | 2.5× (better) |
| P/B | 7.2× | 1.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.2× | 11.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 15.9× (better) | 31.1× |
| PEG | 0.85 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.3% (better) | 3.2% |
| Fair value | $234.43 | $128.18 |
| Margin of safety | 23.7% | 24.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.5% | 32.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.4% (better) | 0.75% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 33.9% (better) | −165% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 35.2% (better) | −152% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.6% | 24.3% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 31.8% | 63.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 17.4% (better) | 12.4% |
| Net margin | 15.0% (better) | −9.1% |
| FCF margin | 17.1% (better) | 8.0% |
| Return on equity | 40.9% (better) | −4.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 18.6% (better) | 2.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.15 | 0.97 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.98 (better) | 4.64 |
| Interest coverage | 11.6× (better) | 1.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 (better) | 0.82 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.08 (better) | 0.66 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% (better) | 1.0% |
| Payout ratio | 39.4% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 17 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 11.1% (better) | 5.1% |
| Buyback yield | 3.0% | 6.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 5.2% | 7.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.5% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 0.47% | 16.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.6M | −$153K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.6% | 6.8% |
Go deeper
- BR stock overview
- BR income statement
- BR valuation and score
- GPN stock overview
- GPN income statement
- GPN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.