FirstCash vs Savers Value Village
FCFS and SVV side by side, both in miscellaneous retail. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FCFS and SVV compare
FirstCash is the larger company, worth 4.9 times as much as Savers Value Village ($7.9B against $1.6B).
On earnings, FirstCash is cheaper: it trades at 20.0× trailing earnings, against 26.1× for Savers Value Village.
FirstCash grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.9% versus 10.1% for Savers Value Village).
FirstCash keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.5% compared with 3.5% at Savers Value Village.
FirstCash pays a dividend yielding 1.2%; Savers Value Village does not pay one.
FirstCash scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 8 for Savers Value Village), 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 | FCFS | SVV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.9B | $1.6B |
| Share price | $184.70 | $10.46 |
| Change, 1 year | 14.3% | 26.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 171% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.44 | 0.84 |
| Employees | 22K | 24K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.0× (better) | 26.1× |
| P/S | 1.8× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 3.5× | 3.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 9.3× |
| P/FCF | – | 13.7× |
| PEG | 1.75 | – |
| FCF yield | – | 7.3% |
| Fair value | $162.80 | $11.26 |
| Margin of safety | −13.5% | 7.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 22.9% (better) | 10.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 17.5% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 31.2% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 33.2% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 23.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 50.2% | 56.0% (better) |
| Operating margin | – | 8.1% |
| Net margin | 9.5% (better) | 3.5% |
| FCF margin | – | 6.6% |
| Return on equity | 18.2% (better) | 14.1% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 9.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 1.41 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.53 |
| Current ratio | 4.81 (better) | 0.67 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.05 (better) | 1.44 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | – |
| Payout ratio | 18.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 10 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.5% (better) | 2.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.6% (better) | 2.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.6% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 26.4% | 76.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$14.7M (better) | −$480M |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.6% | 25.4% |
Go deeper
- FCFS stock overview
- FCFS income statement
- FCFS valuation and score
- SVV stock overview
- SVV income statement
- SVV valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.