Century Casinos vs Marcus
CNTY and MCS side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CNTY and MCS compare
Marcus is the larger company, worth 62 times as much as Century Casinos ($838M against $13.5M).
Marcus grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.5% versus 1.1% for Century Casinos).
Marcus keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.1% compared with −9.6% at Century Casinos.
Marcus pays a dividend yielding 1.2%; Century Casinos does not pay one.
Marcus scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 4 for Century Casinos), 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 | CNTY | MCS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $13.5M | $838M |
| Share price | $0.480 | $26.95 |
| Change, 1 year | −71.9% | 68.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −96.8% | 36.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.35 | 0.67 |
| Employees | 2,911 | 8,390 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 33.7× |
| P/S | 0.0× (better) | 1.0× |
| P/B | – | 1.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 3.4× (better) | 8.4× |
| P/FCF | – | 10.9× |
| FCF yield | −58.8% | 9.2% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $24.97 |
| Margin of safety | – | −7.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.1% | 8.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.5% | 26.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 226% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 220% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 9.7% (better) | 4.9% |
| Net margin | −9.6% | 3.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | −1.4% | 9.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 5.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 28.0% (better) | 6.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.31 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.48 | 0.81 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 0.5× | 3.7× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.19 (better) | 0.67 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.42 | 2.17 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 39.5% |
| Buyback yield | 29.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 29.0% (better) | 1.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 56.4% | 66.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.59% | 36.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$2.0M |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.31% | 6.1% |
Go deeper
- CNTY stock overview
- CNTY income statement
- CNTY valuation and score
- MCS stock overview
- MCS income statement
- MCS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.