AFRM vs. QBTS: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at AFRM and QBTS, 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 dwarfs QBTS in market cap, clocking in at 15.24 billion USD—about 3.44 times the 4.43 billion USD of its counterpart.
AFRM rides a wilder wave with a beta of 3.66, hinting at bigger swings than QBTS’s steadier 0.89.
| Symbol | AFRM | QBTS |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Affirm Holdings, Inc. | D-Wave Quantum Inc. |
| Country | US | CA |
| Sector | Technology | Technology |
| Industry | Software - Infrastructure | Computer Hardware |
| CEO | Mr. Max Roth Levchin | Dr. Alan E. Baratz Ph.D. |
| Price | 47.24 USD | 15.36 USD |
| Market Cap | 15.24 billion USD | 4.43 billion USD |
| Beta | 3.664 | 0.886 |
| Exchange | NASDAQ | NYSE |
| IPO Date | January 13, 2021 | December 11, 2020 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of AFRM and QBTS 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 QBTS based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- Both AFRM at -246.14 and QBTS at -33.33 have negative P/E values over the past twelve months. This reflects consistent losses rather than profits, meaning their current operations aren’t generating positive net income—a situation that could challenge their financial stability if prolonged.
- AFRM carries a negative Forward PEG of -1.38, hinting at analyst expectations of losses or shrinking earnings in the coming period—a potential warning for its future performance. On the flip side, QBTS at 1.25 sidesteps this concern with a more favorable outlook.
- QBTS has a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow of -84.98, indicating it’s spent more cash than it’s brought in over the past year—a cash flow shortfall that raises questions about its operational sustainability. Meanwhile, AFRM at 25.04 maintains a positive cash position.
| Symbol | AFRM | QBTS |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | -246.14 | -33.33 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | -1.38 | 1.25 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 5.07 | 207.56 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 5.32 | 21.21 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | 25.04 | -84.98 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | 69.85 | -30.97 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 7.07 | 193.69 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | 34.90 | -79.30 |
Dividend Comparison
Neither AFRM nor QBTS pays dividends, suggesting both reinvest all profits into growth—likely expansion or innovation—favoring long-term value over immediate income.
| Symbol | AFRM | QBTS |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of AFRM and QBTS, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- AFRM at -0.24 and QBTS at -28.05 both scrape by with interest coverage under 1.5. Earnings are stretched thin against interest bills, leaving little wiggle room if profits drop.
| Symbol | AFRM | QBTS |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 63.09 | 20.73 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 63.09 | 20.61 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 2.56 | 0.04 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.71 | 0.02 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | -0.24 | -28.05 |