RingCentral vs Zoom Communications
RNG and ZM 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 ZM compare
Zoom Communications is the larger company, worth 4.1 times as much as RingCentral ($27.9B against $6.8B).
On earnings, Zoom Communications is cheaper: it trades at 8.8× trailing earnings, against 65.1× for RingCentral.
RingCentral grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.2% versus 5.0% for Zoom Communications).
Zoom Communications keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 65.2% compared with 4.3% at RingCentral.
RingCentral pays a dividend yielding 0.34%; Zoom Communications does not pay one.
Zoom Communications scores higher on the StockData Score (21 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 | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.8B | $27.9B |
| Share price | $81.42 | $95.50 |
| Change, 1 year | 174% | 14.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −65.2% | −63.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.82 | 1.34 |
| Employees | 7,378 | 7,438 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 65.1× | 8.8× (better) |
| P/S | 2.6× (better) | 5.6× |
| P/B | – | 2.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 19.5× | 15.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 10.7× (better) | 14.5× |
| PEG | – | 0.05 |
| FCF yield | 9.4% (better) | 6.9% |
| Fair value | $48.92 | $178.80 |
| Margin of safety | −66.4% | 46.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.2% (better) | 5.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.3% (better) | 12.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 174% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 185% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 22.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 71.8% | 77.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 6.7% | 23.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.3% | 65.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 24.7% | 38.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 32.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 31.4% | 35.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.52 | – |
| Interest coverage | 2.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.11 | 3.83 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.94 | 9.30 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.34% | – |
| Buyback yield | 6.3% (better) | 5.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.6% (better) | 5.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 69.5% |
| Held by insiders | 6.3% | 9.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$24.0M (better) | −$90.5M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.1% | 2.4% |
Go deeper
- RNG stock overview
- RNG income statement
- RNG valuation and score
- ZM stock overview
- ZM income statement
- ZM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.