Hasbro vs Take Two Interactive Software
HAS and TTWO side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HAS and TTWO compare
Take Two Interactive Software is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Hasbro ($35.6B against $16.8B).
Hasbro grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (27.6% versus 15.3% for Take Two Interactive Software).
Hasbro keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.6% compared with −4.8% at Take Two Interactive Software.
Hasbro pays a dividend yielding 2.4%; Take Two Interactive Software does not pay one.
Hasbro scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 6 for Take Two Interactive Software), 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 | HAS | TTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $16.8B | $35.6B |
| Share price | $119.09 | $190.17 |
| Change, 1 year | 52.8% | −24.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 24.1% | 1.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.84 | 0.81 |
| Employees | 4,520 | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.7× | – |
| P/S | 2.7× (better) | 5.3× |
| P/B | – | 9.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.3× (better) | 1036× |
| P/FCF | 13.7× (better) | 105× |
| FCF yield | 7.3% (better) | 0.95% |
| Fair value | $133.86 | $112.12 |
| Margin of safety | 11.0% (better) | −69.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 27.6% (better) | 15.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.37% | 14.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 78.0% (better) | 56.0% |
| Operating margin | 21.9% (better) | −2.4% |
| Net margin | 15.6% (better) | −4.8% |
| FCF margin | 20.1% (better) | 5.0% |
| Return on equity | – | −9.0% |
| Return on invested capital | – | −2.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.70 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.82 (better) | 19.80 |
| Interest coverage | 7.8× (better) | −1.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.40 (better) | 1.06 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.10 (better) | 3.47 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.4% | – |
| Payout ratio | 41.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.58% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | −0.17% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% (better) | −0.17% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.3% | 93.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.64% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$50.2M (better) | −$163M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.9% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- HAS stock overview
- HAS income statement
- HAS valuation and score
- TTWO stock overview
- TTWO income statement
- TTWO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.