Fair Isaac vs Moodys
FICO and MCO side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FICO and MCO compare
Moodys is the larger company, worth 5.6 times as much as Fair Isaac ($85.5B against $15.4B).
On earnings, Fair Isaac is cheaper: it trades at 20.5× trailing earnings, against 31.3× for Moodys.
Fair Isaac grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (24.1% versus 11.7% for Moodys).
Moodys keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 34.3% compared with 34.1% at Fair Isaac.
Moodys pays a dividend yielding 0.82%; Fair Isaac does not pay one.
Moodys scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 18 for Fair Isaac), 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 | FICO | MCO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $15.4B | $85.5B |
| Share price | $711.23 | $493.91 |
| Change, 1 year | −54.6% | 4.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 87.1% | 27.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.17 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 3,811 | 5,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Performance score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.5× (better) | 31.3× |
| P/S | 6.4× (better) | 10.5× |
| P/B | – | 28.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.5× (better) | 22.0× |
| P/FCF | 15.4× (better) | 28.8× |
| PEG | 0.88 (better) | 1.39 |
| FCF yield | 6.5% (better) | 3.5% |
| Fair value | $1305.79 | $512.62 |
| Margin of safety | 45.5% (better) | 3.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 24.1% (better) | 11.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.0% (better) | 7.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 28.8% | 31.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 35.4% (better) | 34.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 27.4% (better) | 7.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 85.1% (better) | 75.0% |
| Operating margin | 51.7% (better) | 44.8% |
| Net margin | 34.1% | 34.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 41.6% (better) | 36.4% |
| Return on equity | – | 80.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 77.9% (better) | 33.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 2.30 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.26 | 1.31 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 6.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.18 | 1.19 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 8.34 (better) | 7.70 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.82% |
| Payout ratio | – | 25.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 10.9% |
| Buyback yield | 23.4% (better) | 3.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 23.4% (better) | 4.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 100.0% | 91.5% |
| Held by insiders | 3.2% | 0.12% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$10.6M (better) | −$13.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 5 | 12 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.8% | 1.6% |
Go deeper
- FICO stock overview
- FICO income statement
- FICO valuation and score
- MCO stock overview
- MCO income statement
- MCO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.