Caesars Entertainment vs Las Vegas Sands
CZR and LVS side by side, both in hotels and motels. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CZR and LVS compare
Las Vegas Sands is the larger company, worth 4.0 times as much as Caesars Entertainment ($23.9B against $5.9B).
Las Vegas Sands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.1% versus 2.4% for Caesars Entertainment).
Las Vegas Sands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.6% compared with −4.0% at Caesars Entertainment.
Las Vegas Sands pays a dividend yielding 3.1%; Caesars Entertainment does not pay one.
Las Vegas Sands scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 5 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 | CZR | LVS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.9B | $23.9B |
| Share price | $29.09 | $36.97 |
| Change, 1 year | 55.4% | −37.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −72.7% | −13.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.84 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 50K | 42K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 14.4× |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 1.7× |
| P/B | 1.8× (better) | 41.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.2× (better) | 8.2× |
| P/FCF | 9.7× | 8.9× (better) |
| FCF yield | 10.3% | 11.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $60.59 | $52.71 |
| Margin of safety | 52.0% (better) | 29.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.4% | 18.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 25.9% | 34.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 22.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 29.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 15.9% | 21.5% (better) |
| Net margin | −4.0% | 12.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.2% | 19.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | −12.8% | 134% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 10.1% | 18.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.47 (better) | 26.27 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.30 | 2.71 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 0.8× | 3.9× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.85 | 1.00 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.67 | 2.28 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 3.1% |
| Payout ratio | – | 54.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 4.8% |
| Buyback yield | – | 10.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 13.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.3% | 41.6% |
| Held by insiders | 5.0% | 66.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.4M (better) | −$243M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.7% | 8.5% |
Go deeper
- CZR stock overview
- CZR income statement
- CZR valuation and score
- LVS stock overview
- LVS income statement
- LVS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.