Churchill Downs vs Rush Street Interactive
CHDN and RSI side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CHDN and RSI compare
Churchill Downs is the larger company, worth 2.4 times as much as Rush Street Interactive ($6.6B against $2.8B).
On earnings, Churchill Downs is cheaper: it trades at 16.3× trailing earnings, against 40.4× for Rush Street Interactive.
Rush Street Interactive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (38.7% versus 5.7% for Churchill Downs).
Churchill Downs keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.8% compared with 2.6% at Rush Street Interactive.
Churchill Downs pays a dividend yielding 0.46%; Rush Street Interactive does not pay one.
Rush Street Interactive scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 13 for Churchill Downs), 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 | CHDN | RSI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.6B | $2.8B |
| Share price | $94.83 | $12.12 |
| Change, 1 year | −5.8% | −33.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −21.6% | −38.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 1.59 |
| Employees | 9,000 | 912 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.3× (better) | 40.4× |
| P/S | 2.2× | 1.9× (better) |
| P/B | 4.9× (better) | 14.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.7× (better) | 12.6× |
| P/FCF | – | 13.3× |
| FCF yield | – | 7.5% |
| Fair value | $144.14 | $13.01 |
| Margin of safety | 34.2% (better) | 6.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.7% | 38.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 22.7% | 32.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −4.1% | 25.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −0.34% | 20.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 35.5% |
| Operating margin | 24.1% (better) | 10.9% |
| Net margin | 13.8% (better) | 2.6% |
| FCF margin | – | 14.3% |
| Return on equity | 34.7% (better) | 23.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 8.8% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.56 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.80 | – |
| Interest coverage | 2.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.36 | 2.22 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.47 | 6.28 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.46% | – |
| Payout ratio | 7.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 15 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.48% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.48% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.9% | 54.4% |
| Held by insiders | 6.0% | 54.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$360M |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.5% | 9.6% |
Go deeper
- CHDN stock overview
- CHDN income statement
- CHDN valuation and score
- RSI stock overview
- RSI income statement
- RSI valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.