Fiserv vs Global Payments
FISV and GPN side by side, both in miscellaneous business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FISV and GPN compare
Fiserv and Global Payments are about the same size, with market caps of $26.6B and $25.6B.
Global Payments grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (32.5% versus −1.2% for Fiserv).
Fiserv keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.4% compared with −9.1% at Global Payments.
Global Payments pays a dividend yielding 1.0%; Fiserv does not pay one.
Fiserv scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 10 for Global Payments), 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 | FISV | GPN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $26.6B | $25.6B |
| Share price | $50.02 | $96.84 |
| Change, 1 year | −29.2% | 22.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −50.2% | −29.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.73 | 1.22 |
| Employees | 38K | 26K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 9.6× | – |
| P/S | 1.3× (better) | 2.5× |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 1.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.6× (better) | 11.8× |
| P/FCF | 6.8× (better) | 31.1× |
| PEG | 0.55 | – |
| FCF yield | 14.8% (better) | 3.2% |
| Fair value | $127.69 | $128.18 |
| Margin of safety | 60.8% (better) | 24.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.2% | 32.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.4% (better) | 0.75% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −17.1% (better) | −165% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −13.0% (better) | −152% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 35.3% (better) | 24.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 63.9% |
| Operating margin | 22.3% (better) | 12.4% |
| Net margin | 13.4% (better) | −9.1% |
| FCF margin | 18.8% (better) | 8.0% |
| Return on equity | 10.7% (better) | −4.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 7.2% (better) | 2.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.04 | 0.97 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.85 | 4.64 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 3.0× (better) | 1.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.04 (better) | 0.82 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.25 (better) | 0.66 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 5.1% |
| Buyback yield | – | 6.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 7.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.0% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 1.0% | 16.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $3.8M (better) | −$153K |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 | 4 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.9% | 6.8% |
Go deeper
- FISV stock overview
- FISV income statement
- FISV valuation and score
- GPN stock overview
- GPN income statement
- GPN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.