CarGurus vs GoodRx
CARG and GDRX 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 CARG and GDRX compare
CarGurus is the larger company, worth 2.5 times as much as GoodRx ($3.1B against $1.2B).
On earnings, CarGurus is cheaper: it trades at 17.6× trailing earnings, against 91.3× for GoodRx.
CarGurus grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.5% versus −1.8% for GoodRx).
CarGurus keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.5% compared with 2.1% at GoodRx.
CarGurus scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 11 for GoodRx), 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 | CARG | GDRX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.1B | $1.2B |
| Share price | $34.81 | $3.65 |
| Change, 1 year | −1.7% | 19.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −8.2% | −90.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.15 | 1.71 |
| Employees | 1,218 | 697 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.6× (better) | 91.3× |
| P/S | 3.1× | 1.6× (better) |
| P/B | 10.2× | 1.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.2× | 8.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 9.5× | 6.3× (better) |
| PEG | 0.49 | – |
| FCF yield | 10.5% | 15.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $46.99 | $5.61 |
| Margin of safety | 25.9% | 35.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.5% (better) | −1.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.5% (better) | 7.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 21.1% (better) | −53.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 34.7% (better) | −60.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 17.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 92.1% (better) | 90.8% |
| Operating margin | 24.2% (better) | 9.5% |
| Net margin | 18.5% (better) | 2.1% |
| FCF margin | 32.7% (better) | 25.1% |
| Return on equity | 54.2% (better) | 2.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 111% (better) | 4.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.75 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.16 |
| Interest coverage | – | 1.8× |
| Current ratio | 2.29 (better) | 1.38 |
| Altman Z-score | 10.51 (better) | 0.27 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 9.1% (better) | 6.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 9.1% (better) | 6.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.7% | 34.8% |
| Held by insiders | 19.6% | 45.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$6.5M (better) | −$9.7M |
| Short interest, % of float | 13.1% | 1.9% |
Go deeper
- CARG stock overview
- CARG income statement
- CARG valuation and score
- GDRX stock overview
- GDRX income statement
- GDRX valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.