Euronet Worldwide vs Western Union
EEFT and WU side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EEFT and WU compare
Euronet Worldwide is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Western Union ($2.6B against $2.1B).
On earnings, Western Union is cheaper: it trades at 6.4× trailing earnings, against 11.5× for Euronet Worldwide.
Euronet Worldwide grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.0% versus −2.1% for Western Union).
Western Union keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.3% compared with 6.4% at Euronet Worldwide.
Western Union pays a dividend yielding 14.0%; Euronet Worldwide does not pay one.
Euronet Worldwide scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 11 for Western Union), 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 | EEFT | WU |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.6B | $2.1B |
| Share price | $70.49 | $6.73 |
| Change, 1 year | −1.6% | −24.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −35.8% | −59.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.05 | 0.62 |
| Employees | 10K | 9,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 5 | 5 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.5× | 6.4× (better) |
| P/S | 0.6× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 2.1× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.1× | 1.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 8.6× | 5.1× (better) |
| PEG | 0.73 | – |
| FCF yield | 11.6% | 19.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $104.08 | $19.26 |
| Margin of safety | 32.3% | 65.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.0% (better) | −2.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.3% (better) | −3.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −7.7% (better) | −56.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −10.5% (better) | −54.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −3.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 34.1% |
| Operating margin | 11.0% | 14.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 6.4% | 8.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.0% | 10.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 22.0% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 12.5% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.70 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.91 | – |
| Interest coverage | 6.8× (better) | 3.8× |
| Current ratio | 1.42 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 2.12 (better) | 0.89 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 14.0% |
| Payout ratio | – | 90.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.87% |
| Buyback yield | 16.1% (better) | 4.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 16.1% | 18.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 96.0% |
| Held by insiders | 7.6% | 1.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $231K (better) | −$241K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 16.0% | 19.6% |
Go deeper
- EEFT stock overview
- EEFT income statement
- EEFT valuation and score
- WU stock overview
- WU income statement
- WU valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.