Gaming & Leisure Properties vs Service Properties Trust
GLPI and SVC side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GLPI and SVC compare
Gaming & Leisure Properties is the larger company, worth 14 times as much as Service Properties Trust ($11.3B against $811M).
Gaming & Leisure Properties grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.3% versus −11.9% for Service Properties Trust).
Gaming & Leisure Properties keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 55.2% compared with −25.4% at Service Properties Trust.
Both pay dividends: Gaming & Leisure Properties yields 8.2% and Service Properties Trust 3.2%.
Gaming & Leisure Properties scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 5 for Service Properties Trust), 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 | GLPI | SVC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.3B | $811M |
| Share price | $38.98 | $6.26 |
| Change, 1 year | −10.7% | −42.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −20.1% | −89.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.52 | 1.26 |
| Employees | 20 | 900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.9× | – |
| P/S | 6.7× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 2.3× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.9× | 3.1× (better) |
| PEG | 3.98 | – |
| Fair value | $58.00 | $12.23 |
| Margin of safety | 32.8% | 48.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.3% (better) | −11.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.7% | 7.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 20.7% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 17.6% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 5.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 33.9% |
| Operating margin | 79.1% | – |
| Net margin | 55.2% (better) | −25.4% |
| Return on equity | 19.6% (better) | −56.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 31.0% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | 3.5× | – |
| Altman Z-score | 1.01 (better) | 0.77 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 8.2% (better) | 3.2% |
| Payout ratio | 98.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.4% (better) | −41.2% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.08% |
| Shareholder yield | 8.2% (better) | 3.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 95.3% | 77.6% |
| Held by insiders | 4.0% | 34.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.1M | $49.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 7.0% |
Go deeper
- GLPI stock overview
- GLPI income statement
- GLPI valuation and score
- SVC stock overview
- SVC income statement
- SVC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.