Madison Square Garden Sports vs StubHub
MSGS and STUB 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 STUB compare
Madison Square Garden Sports is the larger company, worth 4.2 times as much as StubHub ($9.4B against $2.2B).
Madison Square Garden Sports grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.0% versus 7.9% for StubHub).
Madison Square Garden Sports keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 0.67% compared with −91.3% at StubHub.
Madison Square Garden Sports pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; StubHub does not pay one.
StubHub scores higher on the StockData Score (7 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 | STUB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.4B | $2.2B |
| Share price | $388.63 | $5.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 72.3% | −70.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 105% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.61 | 1.94 |
| Employees | 522 | 900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 1214× | – |
| P/S | 8.1× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 295× | – |
| P/FCF | 153× | 3.5× (better) |
| FCF yield | 0.65% | 28.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $27.32 | $16.37 |
| Margin of safety | −1323% | 64.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.0% (better) | 7.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 22.6% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 82.1% |
| Operating margin | 2.5% (better) | −69.7% |
| Net margin | 0.67% (better) | −91.3% |
| FCF margin | 5.3% | 32.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | −141% |
| Return on invested capital | – | −60.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.86 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.93 | – |
| Interest coverage | 1.4× (better) | −14.5× |
| Current ratio | 0.50 | 1.04 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.56 (better) | −0.90 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% | – |
| Payout ratio | 6.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 76.6% | 74.5% |
| Held by insiders | 41.2% | 49.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.1M (better) | −$11.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.9% | 16.3% |
Go deeper
- MSGS stock overview
- MSGS income statement
- MSGS valuation and score
- STUB stock overview
- STUB income statement
- STUB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.