Figure Technology Solutions vs LendingTree
FIGR and TREE side by side, both in non-depository credit institutions. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FIGR and TREE compare
Figure Technology Solutions is the larger company, worth 10 times as much as LendingTree ($5.4B against $517M).
On earnings, LendingTree is cheaper: it trades at 5.6× trailing earnings, against 25.2× for Figure Technology Solutions.
Figure Technology Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (88.8% versus 23.1% for LendingTree).
Figure Technology Solutions keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 33.5% compared with 7.6% at LendingTree.
LendingTree scores higher on the StockData Score (7 against 6 for Figure Technology Solutions), 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 | FIGR | TREE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.4B | $517M |
| Share price | $24.19 | $36.84 |
| Change, 1 year | −35.7% | −31.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −96.0% | −71.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | −0.69 | 2.06 |
| Employees | 307 | 926 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.2× | 5.6× (better) |
| P/S | 7.7× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 3.8× | 2.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 21.4× (better) | 35.7× |
| P/FCF | – | 6.4× |
| FCF yield | – | 15.7% |
| Fair value | $10.17 | – |
| Margin of safety | −138% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 88.8% (better) | 23.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 4.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 283% | 600% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 500% | 545% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 29.1% |
| Operating margin | 28.4% (better) | 0.37% |
| Net margin | 33.5% (better) | 7.6% |
| FCF margin | – | 6.2% |
| Return on equity | 26.8% | 51.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 52.2% (better) | 0.80% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.22 (better) | 1.31 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −5.57 | 11.58 (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.86 (better) | 1.57 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.90 (better) | 1.01 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 53.2% | 81.4% |
| Held by insiders | 30.6% | 25.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$56.2M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 9.2% |
Go deeper
- FIGR stock overview
- FIGR income statement
- FIGR valuation and score
- TREE stock overview
- TREE income statement
- TREE valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.