FirstCash vs Savers Value Village
FCFS and SVV side by side, both in miscellaneous retail. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FCFS and SVV compare
FirstCash is the larger company, worth 5.5 times as much as Savers Value Village ($7.9B against $1.4B).
On earnings, FirstCash is cheaper: it trades at 20.7× trailing earnings, against 58.2× for Savers Value Village.
FirstCash grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (21.6% versus 10.0% for Savers Value Village).
FirstCash keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.4% compared with 1.4% at Savers Value Village.
FirstCash pays a dividend yielding 0.93%; Savers Value Village does not pay one.
FirstCash scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 5 for Savers Value Village), 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 | FCFS | SVV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.9B | $1.4B |
| Share price | $181.25 | $9.31 |
| Change, 1 year | 22.4% | −29.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 110% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.46 | 0.86 |
| Employees | 22K | 24K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.7× (better) | 58.2× |
| P/S | 1.9× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | 3.4× | 3.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 9.2× |
| P/FCF | – | 17.5× |
| PEG | 1.81 | – |
| FCF yield | – | 5.7% |
| Fair value | $161.93 | $8.47 |
| Margin of safety | −11.9% | −9.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 21.6% (better) | 10.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 17.5% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 33.0% (better) | −27.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 34.6% (better) | −23.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 23.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 50.5% | 55.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | – | 7.7% |
| Net margin | 9.4% (better) | 1.4% |
| FCF margin | – | 4.7% |
| Return on equity | 17.4% (better) | 5.7% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 7.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 1.61 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.79 |
| Current ratio | 4.89 (better) | 0.84 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.06 (better) | 1.37 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.93% | – |
| Payout ratio | 19.0% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 10 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.2% (better) | 2.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.1% (better) | 2.1% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.5% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 26.1% | 76.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$20.6M (better) | −$480M |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.6% | 29.3% |
Go deeper
- FCFS stock overview
- FCFS income statement
- FCFS valuation and score
- SVV stock overview
- SVV income statement
- SVV valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.