Diebold Nixdorf vs Euronet Worldwide
DBD and EEFT side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DBD and EEFT compare
Euronet Worldwide is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Diebold Nixdorf ($2.6B against $1.9B).
On earnings, Euronet Worldwide is cheaper: it trades at 11.5× trailing earnings, against 26.7× for Diebold Nixdorf.
Diebold Nixdorf grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.3% versus 5.0% for Euronet Worldwide).
Euronet Worldwide keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.4% compared with 2.0% at Diebold Nixdorf.
Euronet Worldwide scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 8 for Diebold Nixdorf), 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 | DBD | EEFT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.9B | $2.6B |
| Share price | $57.04 | $70.49 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.2% | −1.6% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −35.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.99 | 1.05 |
| Employees | 20K | 10K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.7× | 11.5× (better) |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 0.6× |
| P/B | 2.0× (better) | 2.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.0× | 6.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 8.6× |
| PEG | – | 0.73 |
| FCF yield | – | 11.6% |
| Fair value | $91.07 | $104.08 |
| Margin of safety | 37.4% (better) | 32.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.3% (better) | 5.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.50% | 11.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 51.6% (better) | −7.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 56.2% (better) | −10.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.0% | – |
| Operating margin | 5.4% | 11.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.0% | 6.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 7.0% |
| Return on equity | 7.5% | 22.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 8.1% | 12.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.01 (better) | 1.70 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.28 | 1.91 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.2× | 6.8× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.27 | 1.42 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.84 | 2.12 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 10.8% | 16.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 10.8% | 16.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 116% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 58.9% | 7.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$126M | $231K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 23.0% | 16.0% |
Go deeper
- DBD stock overview
- DBD income statement
- DBD valuation and score
- EEFT stock overview
- EEFT income statement
- EEFT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.