Maplebear vs Shift4 Payments
CART and FOUR side by side, both in miscellaneous business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CART and FOUR compare
Maplebear is the larger company, worth 4.1 times as much as Shift4 Payments ($13.1B against $3.2B).
Shift4 Payments grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (32.4% versus 12.6% for Maplebear).
Maplebear keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.0% compared with 2.2% at Shift4 Payments.
Maplebear scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 8 for Shift4 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 | CART | FOUR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $13.1B | $3.2B |
| Share price | $56.45 | $40.03 |
| Change, 1 year | 49.4% | −42.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 476% | −34.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.03 | 1.56 |
| Employees | 3,600 | 6,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 31.0× | – |
| P/S | 3.3× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | 5.6× | 2.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.4× | 8.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 11.1× | 5.5× (better) |
| PEG | 1.67 | – |
| FCF yield | 9.0% | 18.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $45.31 | $94.52 |
| Margin of safety | −24.6% | 57.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.6% | 32.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 40.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −1.6% (better) | −52.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 7.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 72.6% (better) | 35.9% |
| Operating margin | 14.7% (better) | 8.1% |
| Net margin | 12.0% (better) | 2.2% |
| FCF margin | 29.5% (better) | 12.0% |
| Return on equity | 17.1% (better) | 6.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 29.3% (better) | 7.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 2.79 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 4.52 |
| Interest coverage | – | 1.5× |
| Current ratio | 2.28 (better) | 1.21 |
| Altman Z-score | 8.05 (better) | 0.91 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 14.2% | 19.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 14.2% | 19.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.6% | 87.5% |
| Held by insiders | 71.9% | 30.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$27.6M | $32.3M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 33.7% | 26.5% |
Go deeper
- CART stock overview
- CART income statement
- CART valuation and score
- FOUR stock overview
- FOUR income statement
- FOUR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.