Madison Square Garden Sports vs Rush Street Interactive
MSGS and RSI side by side, both in miscellaneous amusement and recreation. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MSGS and RSI compare
Madison Square Garden Sports is the larger company, worth 3.3 times as much as Rush Street Interactive ($9.4B against $2.8B).
On earnings, Rush Street Interactive is cheaper: it trades at 40.4× trailing earnings, against 1214× for Madison Square Garden Sports.
Rush Street Interactive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (38.7% versus 11.0% for Madison Square Garden Sports).
Rush Street Interactive keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.6% compared with 0.67% at Madison Square Garden Sports.
Madison Square Garden Sports pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; Rush Street Interactive does not pay one.
Rush Street Interactive scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 6 for Madison Square Garden Sports), 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 | MSGS | RSI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.4B | $2.8B |
| Share price | $388.63 | $12.12 |
| Change, 1 year | 72.3% | −33.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 105% | −38.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.61 | 1.59 |
| Employees | 522 | 912 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 1214× | 40.4× (better) |
| P/S | 8.1× | 1.9× (better) |
| P/B | – | 14.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 295× | 12.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 153× | 13.3× (better) |
| FCF yield | 0.65% | 7.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $27.32 | $13.01 |
| Margin of safety | −1323% | 6.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.0% | 38.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 22.6% | 32.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 25.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 20.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 35.5% |
| Operating margin | 2.5% | 10.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.67% | 2.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.3% | 14.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 23.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.93 | – |
| Interest coverage | 1.4× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.50 | 2.22 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.56 | 6.28 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% | – |
| Payout ratio | 6.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.48% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.48% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 76.6% | 54.4% |
| Held by insiders | 41.2% | 54.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.1M (better) | −$360M |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.9% | 9.6% |
Go deeper
- MSGS stock overview
- MSGS income statement
- MSGS valuation and score
- RSI stock overview
- RSI income statement
- RSI valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.