Fidelity National Information Services vs Mastercard
FIS and MA side by side, both in miscellaneous business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FIS and MA compare
Mastercard is the larger company, worth 28 times as much as Fidelity National Information Services ($559B against $19.9B).
Fidelity National Information Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.3% versus 15.3% for Mastercard).
Both pay dividends: Fidelity National Information Services yields 4.5% and Mastercard 0.55%.
Fidelity National Information Services scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 12 for Mastercard), 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 | FIS | MA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $19.9B | $559B |
| Share price | $38.55 | $638.01 |
| Change, 1 year | −37.3% | 15.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −66.1% | 82.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.90 | 0.88 |
| Employees | 44K | 40K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 5.9× | – |
| P/S | 1.6× (better) | 15.4× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 82.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.7× (better) | 25.5× |
| P/FCF | 7.0× (better) | 34.8× |
| FCF yield | 14.2% (better) | 2.9% |
| Fair value | $71.41 | $141.69 |
| Margin of safety | 46.0% (better) | −350% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 18.3% (better) | 15.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −3.2% | 16.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 2911% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 3517% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 23.9% (better) | 21.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.9% | – |
| Operating margin | 15.7% | 58.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 27.6% | – |
| FCF margin | 23.1% | 44.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 22.3% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 4.6% | 99.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.32 (better) | 3.54 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.92 | 0.61 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 3.2× | 26.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.53 | 1.01 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.07 | 10.66 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.5% (better) | 0.55% |
| Payout ratio | 25.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.6% (better) | 2.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 8.1% (better) | 3.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.9% | 88.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.13% | 0.06% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.2M (better) | −$66.6M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 15 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.8% | 0.73% |
Go deeper
- FIS stock overview
- FIS income statement
- FIS valuation and score
- MA stock overview
- MA income statement
- MA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.