Intercontinental Exchange vs Nasdaq
ICE and NDAQ side by side, both in security & commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges & services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ICE and NDAQ compare
Intercontinental Exchange is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Nasdaq ($94.8B against $59.4B).
On earnings, Intercontinental Exchange is cheaper: it trades at 23.0× trailing earnings, against 31.0× for Nasdaq.
Intercontinental Exchange grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.1% versus 7.7% for Nasdaq).
Intercontinental Exchange keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 29.6% compared with 22.5% at Nasdaq.
Both pay dividends: Intercontinental Exchange yields 1.2% and Nasdaq 1.1%.
Intercontinental Exchange scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 18 for Nasdaq), 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 | ICE | NDAQ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $94.8B | $59.4B |
| Share price | $168.85 | $106.23 |
| Change, 1 year | 12.1% | 24.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 24.1% | 49.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 0.89 |
| Employees | 13K | 9,525 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 18 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.0× (better) | 31.0× |
| P/S | 6.7× (better) | 6.8× |
| P/B | 3.2× (better) | 5.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.5× (better) | 24.6× |
| P/FCF | 18.0× (better) | 30.4× |
| PEG | 0.75 (better) | 2.82 |
| FCF yield | 5.6% (better) | 3.3% |
| Fair value | $173.33 | $79.91 |
| Margin of safety | 2.6% (better) | −32.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.1% (better) | 7.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.9% (better) | 8.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 31.6% (better) | 30.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 33.5% (better) | 31.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 8.9% | 10.7% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 40.6% (better) | 29.5% |
| Net margin | 29.6% (better) | 22.5% |
| FCF margin | 37.6% (better) | 22.3% |
| Return on equity | 14.2% | 16.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 8.5% | 10.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.88 | 0.73 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.49 | 3.00 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 6.8× | 7.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.03 (better) | 1.01 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.78 | 3.48 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% (better) | 1.1% |
| Payout ratio | 27.8% | 32.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 13 | 13 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.9% | 10.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 2.1% | 2.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% (better) | 3.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.1% | 84.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.63% | 18.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$91.3M | −$65.1M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.2% | 1.7% |
Go deeper
- ICE stock overview
- ICE income statement
- ICE valuation and score
- NDAQ stock overview
- NDAQ income statement
- NDAQ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.