Bentley Systems vs Figma
BSY and FIG side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BSY and FIG compare
Bentley Systems and Figma are about the same size, with market caps of $12.4B and $11.5B.
Figma grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (43.4% versus 12.8% for Bentley Systems).
Bentley Systems keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.1% compared with −123% at Figma.
Bentley Systems pays a dividend yielding 0.68%; Figma does not pay one.
Bentley Systems scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 8 for Figma), 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 | BSY | FIG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.4B | $11.5B |
| Share price | $40.90 | $21.65 |
| Change, 1 year | −19.0% | −57.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −30.2% | 170% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.11 | 2.80 |
| Employees | 2,100 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 44.9× | – |
| P/S | 7.7× (better) | 9.0× |
| P/B | 10.3× | 7.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 35.5× | – |
| P/FCF | 24.8× (better) | 49.7× |
| PEG | 2.88 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.0% (better) | 2.0% |
| Fair value | $34.33 | $6.82 |
| Margin of safety | −19.2% (better) | −218% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.8% | 43.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.4% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 14.0% (better) | −1116% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 16.7% (better) | −947% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 81.8% (better) | 79.1% |
| Operating margin | 23.6% (better) | −124% |
| Net margin | 18.1% (better) | −123% |
| FCF margin | 31.1% (better) | 18.1% |
| Return on equity | 24.5% (better) | −109% |
| Return on invested capital | 12.8% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.01 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.83 | – |
| Interest coverage | 19.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.59 | 2.45 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.75 | 5.83 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.68% | – |
| Payout ratio | 29.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −29.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.6% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 51.8% | 69.0% |
| Held by insiders | 48.4% | 45.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$28.1K (better) | −$256M |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.5% | 14.1% |
Go deeper
- BSY stock overview
- BSY income statement
- BSY valuation and score
- FIG stock overview
- FIG income statement
- FIG valuation and score
Other comparisons
- BSY vs DUOL
- BSY vs GWRE
- BSY vs IOT
- BSY vs MANH
- BSY vs PCOR
- BSY vs PTC
- BSY vs U
- FIG vs GTLB
- FIG vs PCOR
- FIG vs U
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.