RingCentral vs Toast
RNG and TOST side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How RNG and TOST compare
Toast is the larger company, worth 2.7 times as much as RingCentral ($18.3B against $6.8B).
On earnings, Toast is cheaper: it trades at 40.1× trailing earnings, against 65.1× for RingCentral.
Toast grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (23.0% versus 5.2% for RingCentral).
Toast keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.1% compared with 4.3% at RingCentral.
RingCentral pays a dividend yielding 0.34%; Toast does not pay one.
Toast scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 9 for RingCentral), 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 | RNG | TOST |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.8B | $18.3B |
| Share price | $81.42 | $31.68 |
| Change, 1 year | 174% | −11.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −65.2% | −46.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.82 | 1.69 |
| Employees | 7,378 | 6,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 65.1× | 40.1× (better) |
| P/S | 2.6× (better) | 2.7× |
| P/B | – | 9.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 19.5× (better) | 35.9× |
| P/FCF | 10.7× (better) | 31.8× |
| FCF yield | 9.4% (better) | 3.1% |
| Fair value | $48.92 | $18.83 |
| Margin of safety | −66.4% (better) | −68.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.2% | 23.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.3% | 49.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 117% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 132% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 71.8% (better) | 26.7% |
| Operating margin | 6.7% (better) | 6.3% |
| Net margin | 4.3% | 7.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 24.7% (better) | 8.5% |
| Return on equity | – | 25.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 31.4% | 50.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.52 | – |
| Interest coverage | 2.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.11 | 2.40 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.94 | 12.41 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.34% | – |
| Buyback yield | 6.3% (better) | 2.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.6% (better) | 2.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 83.0% |
| Held by insiders | 6.3% | 11.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$24.0M (better) | −$26.5M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.1% | 6.7% |
Go deeper
- RNG stock overview
- RNG income statement
- RNG valuation and score
- TOST stock overview
- TOST income statement
- TOST valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.