Intercontinental Exchange vs Tradeweb Markets
ICE and TW side by side, both in security & commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges & services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ICE and TW compare
Intercontinental Exchange is the larger company, worth 3.3 times as much as Tradeweb Markets ($101B against $30.3B).
On earnings, Intercontinental Exchange is cheaper: it trades at 24.6× trailing earnings, against 30.7× for Tradeweb Markets.
Tradeweb Markets grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.4% versus 12.1% for Intercontinental Exchange).
Tradeweb Markets keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 39.8% compared with 29.6% at Intercontinental Exchange.
Both pay dividends: Intercontinental Exchange yields 1.1% and Tradeweb Markets 0.41%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ICE | TW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $101B | $30.3B |
| Share price | $180.59 | $130.60 |
| Change, 1 year | 20.8% | 19.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 35.5% | 33.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.79 | 0.65 |
| Employees | 13K | 1,569 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 | 17 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.6× (better) | 30.7× |
| P/S | 7.2× (better) | 13.3× |
| P/B | 3.4× (better) | 4.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.4× (better) | 23.1× |
| P/FCF | 19.1× (better) | 26.3× |
| PEG | 0.80 (better) | 0.84 |
| FCF yield | 5.2% (better) | 3.8% |
| Fair value | $176.96 | $133.05 |
| Margin of safety | −2.0% | 1.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.1% | 14.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.9% | 18.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 31.6% | 44.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 33.5% | 45.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 8.9% | 33.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 40.6% | 44.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 29.6% | 39.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 37.6% | 50.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 14.2% (better) | 14.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 8.5% | 17.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.88 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.49 | – |
| Interest coverage | 6.8× | 490× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.03 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 0.80 | 17.55 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% (better) | 0.41% |
| Payout ratio | 27.8% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 13 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.9% (better) | 8.4% |
| Buyback yield | 2.0% (better) | 1.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.1% (better) | 2.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.5% | 50.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.63% | 51.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$70.3M | −$46.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.1% | 3.2% |
Go deeper
- ICE stock overview
- ICE income statement
- ICE valuation and score
- TW stock overview
- TW income statement
- TW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.