Fiserv vs PayPal
FISV and PYPL side by side, both in miscellaneous business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FISV and PYPL compare
PayPal is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Fiserv ($49.4B against $34.0B).
PayPal grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.4% versus −1.7% for Fiserv).
PayPal keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.8% compared with −18.9% at Fiserv.
PayPal pays a dividend yielding 0.94%; Fiserv does not pay one.
PayPal scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 6 for Fiserv), 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 | FISV | PYPL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $34.0B | $49.4B |
| Share price | $63.90 | $59.48 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.16% | −10.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −36.1% | −69.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.67 | 1.37 |
| Employees | 38K | 24K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 11.4× |
| P/S | 1.6× | 1.4× (better) |
| P/B | 1.6× (better) | 2.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 7.7× |
| P/FCF | 10.8× | 7.8× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.30 |
| FCF yield | 9.3% | 12.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $103.21 | $97.83 |
| Margin of safety | 38.1% | 39.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.7% | 4.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.4% | 9.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −209% | −3.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −215% | 5.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 35.3% (better) | 8.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | −10.9% | 17.0% (better) |
| Net margin | −18.9% | 13.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 15.2% | 18.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | −17.0% | 23.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −3.5% | 21.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.29 | 0.69 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.47 |
| Interest coverage | −1.5× | 12.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.04 | 1.26 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.03 | 1.93 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.94% |
| Payout ratio | – | 10.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | – | 12.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 13.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.0% | 78.6% |
| Held by insiders | 1.1% | 0.12% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $3.8M (better) | −$5.6M |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.6% | 3.4% |
Go deeper
- FISV stock overview
- FISV income statement
- FISV valuation and score
- PYPL stock overview
- PYPL income statement
- PYPL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.