AFRM vs. VRSN: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Company Overview

VRSN stands out with 26.39 billion USD in market value—about 1.73× AFRM’s market cap of 15.24 billion USD.

AFRM’s beta of 3.66 points to much larger expected swings compared to VRSN’s calmer 0.80, suggesting both higher upside and downside potential.

Performance Comparison

This chart compares the performance of AFRM and VRSN 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 VRSN 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 VRSN at 33.62 signals healthy earnings.
• Analysts assign negative forward PEG ratios to both AFRM (-1.38) and VRSN (-0.34), suggesting expectation of shrinking or negative earnings in the upcoming period—a worrying sign for their profit outlook.
• VRSN carries a sub-zero price-to-book ratio of -18.93, indicating negative equity. In contrast, AFRM (P/B 5.32) has positive book value.

Dividend Comparison

AFRM offers a 0% dividend yield, suggesting it may be reinvesting available cash back into the business for future growth, while VRSN provides a 0.27% dividend yield, giving investors a steady income stream.

Financial Strength Metrics Comparison

This section dives into the financial resilience of AFRM and VRSN, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.

• VRSN’s current ratio of 0.56 indicates its assets may not cover near-term debts, whereas AFRM at 63.09 maintains healthy liquidity.
• VRSN posts a quick ratio of 0.56, indicating limited coverage of short-term debts from its most liquid assets—while AFRM at 63.09 enjoys stronger liquidity resilience.
• VRSN has negative equity (debt-to-equity ratio -1.28), suggesting asset shortfalls, whereas AFRM at 2.56 preserves healthier equity coverage.
• VRSN carries a debt-to-assets ratio of 1.24, suggesting substantial asset funding via debt, while AFRM at 0.71 opts for a more conservative financing structure.
• With negative EBIT (-0.24), AFRM cannot cover its interest payments. VRSN, with an interest coverage of 13.94, meets its interest obligations.