AFRM vs. IONQ: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at AFRM and IONQ, 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
AFRM dominates in value with a market cap of 15.24 billion USD, eclipsing IONQ’s 8.31 billion USD by roughly 1.83×.
With betas of 3.66 for AFRM and 2.46 for IONQ, both show similar volatility profiles relative to the overall market.
| Symbol | AFRM | IONQ |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Affirm Holdings, Inc. | IonQ, Inc. |
| Country | US | US |
| Sector | Technology | Technology |
| Industry | Software - Infrastructure | Computer Hardware |
| CEO | Mr. Max Roth Levchin | Mr. Niccolo Mcleod de Masi |
| Price | 47.24 USD | 33.54 USD |
| Market Cap | 15.24 billion USD | 8.31 billion USD |
| Beta | 3.66 | 2.46 |
| Exchange | NASDAQ | NYSE |
| IPO Date | January 13, 2021 | January 4, 2021 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of AFRM and IONQ 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 IONQ based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- Neither AFRM nor IONQ turned a profit—both carry negative P/E ratios of -246.14 and -23.66, underscoring continued losses that pressure their valuations.
- AFRM posts a negative forward PEG of -1.38, hinting at anticipated earnings decline, whereas IONQ at 8.08 has projections for stable or growing earnings.
- IONQ reports a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow ratio of -42.42, showing a cash flow shortfall that could threaten its operational sustainability, while AFRM at 25.04 maintains positive cash flow.
| Symbol | AFRM | IONQ |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | -246.14 | -23.66 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | -1.38 | 8.08 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 5.07 | 193.01 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 5.32 | 10.03 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | 25.04 | -42.42 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | 69.85 | -34.91 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 7.07 | 189.71 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | 34.90 | -41.70 |
Dividend Comparison
Neither AFRM nor IONQ 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 | IONQ |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of AFRM and IONQ, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- AFRM has negative EBIT (interest coverage -0.24), unable to cover interest, while IONQ shows “--” (negligible interest expense).
| Symbol | AFRM | IONQ |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 63.09 | 13.17 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 63.09 | 12.67 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 2.56 | 0.02 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.71 | 0.02 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | -0.24 | -- |