Shift4 Payments vs TriNet
FOUR and TNET side by side, both in miscellaneous business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FOUR and TNET compare
Shift4 Payments and TriNet are about the same size, with market caps of $3.3B and $3.0B.
Shift4 Payments grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (27.0% versus −4.2% for TriNet).
TriNet keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.6% compared with 2.3% at Shift4 Payments.
TriNet pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; Shift4 Payments does not pay one.
TriNet scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 8 for Shift4 Payments), 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 | FOUR | TNET |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.3B | $3.0B |
| Share price | $41.52 | $65.34 |
| Change, 1 year | −41.8% | 16.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −28.8% | −38.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.51 | 0.87 |
| Employees | 6,300 | 3,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 17.8× |
| P/S | 0.7× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | 2.3× (better) | 22.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.1× | – |
| P/FCF | 5.3× (better) | 10.5× |
| FCF yield | 19.0% (better) | 9.6% |
| Fair value | $96.56 | $76.79 |
| Margin of safety | 57.0% (better) | 14.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 27.0% (better) | −4.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 40.4% (better) | 4.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −41.1% | 29.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 36.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −4.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.5% | – |
| Operating margin | 8.2% | – |
| Net margin | 2.3% | 3.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 12.7% (better) | 5.9% |
| Return on equity | 7.4% | 142% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.3% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.77 (better) | 6.74 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.51 | – |
| Interest coverage | 1.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.23 (better) | 1.14 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.87 | 1.64 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 30.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Buyback yield | 24.9% (better) | 5.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 24.9% (better) | 6.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.5% | 95.9% |
| Held by insiders | 30.3% | 48.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $32.4M (better) | −$641K |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 25.4% | 7.3% |
Go deeper
- FOUR stock overview
- FOUR income statement
- FOUR valuation and score
- TNET stock overview
- TNET income statement
- TNET valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.