Boyd Gaming vs Caesars Entertainment
BYD and CZR side by side, both in hotels and motels. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BYD and CZR compare
Boyd Gaming and Caesars Entertainment are about the same size, with market caps of $5.5B and $6.0B.
Caesars Entertainment grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.1% versus 0.33% for Boyd Gaming).
Boyd Gaming keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.3% compared with −4.5% at Caesars Entertainment.
Boyd Gaming pays a dividend yielding 1.0%; Caesars Entertainment does not pay one.
Boyd Gaming scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 4 for Caesars Entertainment), 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 | BYD | CZR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.5B | $6.0B |
| Share price | $77.24 | $29.33 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.5% | 48.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 29.3% | −69.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 1.83 |
| Employees | 16K | 50K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.7× | – |
| P/S | 1.3× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 2.2× | 1.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.2× | 5.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 10.3× |
| PEG | 0.21 | – |
| FCF yield | −0.29% | 9.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $108.36 | $60.78 |
| Margin of safety | 28.7% | 51.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.33% | 3.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.4% | 25.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −73.2% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −71.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 17.8% (better) | 15.4% |
| Net margin | 12.3% (better) | −4.5% |
| FCF margin | −0.38% | 5.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 19.6% (better) | −15.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 13.0% (better) | 9.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.09 (better) | 3.53 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.17 (better) | 3.33 |
| Interest coverage | 6.1× (better) | 0.8× |
| Current ratio | 0.33 | 0.82 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.09 (better) | 0.68 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.0% | – |
| Payout ratio | 11.5% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | – |
| Buyback yield | 12.1% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 13.1% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 77.1% | 97.3% |
| Held by insiders | 12.8% | 5.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$24.8M | −$18.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.2% | 12.4% |
Go deeper
- BYD stock overview
- BYD income statement
- BYD valuation and score
- CZR stock overview
- CZR income statement
- CZR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.