AFRM vs. CLS: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at AFRM and CLS, comparing key factors like performance, valuation metrics, dividends, and financial strength. It’s built for investors or anyone curious to see how these two stocks match up.
Company Overview
With AFRM at 15.24 billion USD and CLS at 13.11 billion USD, their market capitalizations sit in the same ballpark.
AFRM’s beta of 3.66 points to much larger expected swings compared to CLS’s calmer 1.50, suggesting both higher upside and downside potential.
| Symbol | AFRM | CLS |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Affirm Holdings, Inc. | Celestica Inc. |
| Country | US | CA |
| Sector | Technology | Technology |
| Industry | Software - Infrastructure | Hardware, Equipment & Parts |
| CEO | Mr. Max Roth Levchin | Mr. Robert Andrew Mionis |
| Price | 47.24 USD | 114.03 USD |
| Market Cap | 15.24 billion USD | 13.11 billion USD |
| Beta | 3.66 | 1.50 |
| Exchange | NASDAQ | NYSE |
| IPO Date | January 13, 2021 | June 30, 1998 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of AFRM and CLS over the past year by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each (starting one year ago).
Hover over the lines to see the investment’s value and total return (%) at specific dates.
Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.
Valuation Metrics Comparison
The section examines key financial ratios to assess the valuation of AFRM and CLS based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- AFRM posts a negative P/E of -246.14, reflecting last year’s net loss, while CLS at 32.04 signals healthy earnings.
- AFRM posts a negative forward PEG of -1.38, hinting at anticipated earnings decline, whereas CLS at 1.64 has projections for stable or growing earnings.
| Symbol | AFRM | CLS |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | -246.14 | 32.04 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | -1.38 | 1.64 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 5.07 | 1.30 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 5.32 | 8.49 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | 25.04 | 37.19 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | 69.85 | 18.97 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 7.07 | 1.36 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | 34.90 | 39.00 |
Dividend Comparison
Neither AFRM nor CLS currently pays a dividend yield; this often indicates they are reinvesting earnings for growth, prioritizing long-term expansion over immediate cash returns to shareholders.
| Symbol | AFRM | CLS |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of AFRM and CLS, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- With negative EBIT (-0.24), AFRM cannot cover its interest payments. CLS, with an interest coverage of 12.39, meets its interest obligations.
| Symbol | AFRM | CLS |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 63.09 | 1.43 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 63.09 | 0.85 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 2.56 | 0.60 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.71 | 0.16 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | -0.24 | 12.39 |