Seek Returns logo

IONQ vs. UBER: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on

Here’s a clear look at IONQ and UBER, comparing key factors like historical performance, profitability, financial strength, growth, dividend, and valuation.

Company Profile

SymbolIONQUBER
Company NameIonQ, Inc.Uber Technologies, Inc.
CountryUnited StatesUnited States
GICS SectorInformation TechnologyIndustrials
GICS IndustryTechnology Hardware, Storage & PeripheralsGround Transportation
Market Capitalization10.92 billion USD195.47 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateJanuary 4, 2021May 10, 2019
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of IONQ and UBER by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each. Use the tabs to select the desired time period. Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.

IONQ vs. UBER: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past one year.

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolIONQUBER
5-Day Price Return-10.33%2.55%
13-Week Price Return4.84%1.37%
26-Week Price Return-4.81%16.74%
52-Week Price Return404.66%26.35%
Month-to-Date Return-7.73%6.81%
Year-to-Date Return-11.92%55.39%
10-Day Avg. Volume19.59M18.40M
3-Month Avg. Volume21.16M20.55M
3-Month Volatility98.91%29.59%
Beta2.611.49

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

IONQ

-67.52%

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
47.24%
Q3
29.40%
Median
9.11%
Q1
6.06%
Min
-0.79%

IONQ has a negative Return on Equity of -67.52%. This indicates the company is generating a loss for its shareholders, which can be a result of unprofitability or negative shareholder equity and is often a sign of financial distress.

UBER

62.42%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
22.11%
Q3
13.84%
Median
9.66%
Q1
7.55%
Min
0.36%

UBER’s Return on Equity of 62.42% is exceptionally high, placing it well beyond the typical range for the Ground Transportation industry. This demonstrates a superior ability to generate profit from shareholder investments, though it could also be inflated by high financial leverage.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

IONQ

-885.21%

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
13.86%
Q3
8.17%
Median
4.62%
Q1
3.65%
Min
-0.21%

IONQ has a negative Net Profit Margin of -885.21%, indicating the company is operating at a net loss as its expenses exceeded its revenues.

UBER

26.68%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
32.20%
Q3
18.59%
Median
7.11%
Q1
4.13%
Min
-10.38%

A Net Profit Margin of 26.68% places UBER in the upper quartile for the Ground Transportation industry, signifying strong profitability and more effective cost management than most of its peers.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

IONQ

-700.61%

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
17.80%
Q3
10.33%
Median
6.31%
Q1
4.86%
Min
2.53%

IONQ has a negative Operating Profit Margin of -700.61%. This signifies the company is unprofitable at the operational level, as its core business expenses exceed its revenue.

UBER

9.03%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
41.31%
Q3
23.16%
Median
11.33%
Q1
6.82%
Min
-12.08%

UBER’s Operating Profit Margin of 9.03% is around the midpoint for the Ground Transportation industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolIONQUBER
Return on Equity (TTM)-67.52%62.42%
Return on Assets (TTM)-57.89%24.38%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)-885.21%26.68%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)-700.61%9.03%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)54.54%33.93%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

IONQ

7.76

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
2.47
Q3
1.98
Median
1.40
Q1
1.26
Min
0.70

IONQ’s Current Ratio of 7.76 is exceptionally high, placing it well outside the typical range for the Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals industry. This indicates a very strong liquidity position, though such a high ratio may also suggest that the company is not using its assets efficiently to generate profits.

UBER

1.11

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
2.03
Q3
1.26
Median
0.89
Q1
0.73
Min
0.38

UBER’s Current Ratio of 1.11 aligns with the median group of the Ground Transportation industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

IONQ

0.00

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
1.47
Q3
0.93
Median
0.32
Q1
0.19
Min
0.00

Falling into the lower quartile for the Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals industry, IONQ’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.00 points to a conservative financing strategy. This results in lower financial risk but potentially limits strategic investments compared to more leveraged competitors.

UBER

0.42

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
2.51
Q3
1.51
Median
1.06
Q1
0.47
Min
0.00

Falling into the lower quartile for the Ground Transportation industry, UBER’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.42 points to a conservative financing strategy. This results in lower financial risk but potentially limits strategic investments compared to more leveraged competitors.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

IONQ

-23.93

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
204.63
Q3
90.22
Median
21.70
Q1
6.79
Min
-23.93

IONQ has a negative Interest Coverage Ratio of -23.93. This indicates that its earnings were insufficient to cover even its operational costs, let alone its interest payments, signaling significant financial distress.

UBER

-0.24

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
51.07
Q3
22.54
Median
7.94
Q1
2.72
Min
-24.57

UBER has a negative Interest Coverage Ratio of -0.24. This indicates that its earnings were insufficient to cover even its operational costs, let alone its interest payments, signaling significant financial distress.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolIONQUBER
Current Ratio (MRQ)7.761.11
Quick Ratio (MRQ)7.260.97
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.000.42
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)-23.93-0.24

Growth

Revenue Growth

IONQ vs. UBER: A side-by-side comparison of their Revenue Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

EPS Growth

IONQ vs. UBER: A side-by-side comparison of their EPS Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

Dividend

Dividend Yield (TTM)

IONQ

0.00%

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
4.50%
Q3
3.66%
Median
1.90%
Q1
0.00%
Min
0.00%

IONQ currently does not pay a dividend, resulting in a yield of 0%. This is a common strategy for growth-focused companies that prioritize reinvesting earnings, though it may be less typical in mature, income-oriented sectors.

UBER

0.00%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
5.44%
Q3
2.49%
Median
1.53%
Q1
0.39%
Min
0.00%

UBER currently does not pay a dividend, resulting in a yield of 0%. This is a common strategy for growth-focused companies that prioritize reinvesting earnings, though it may be less typical in mature, income-oriented sectors.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

IONQ

0.00%

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
142.87%
Q3
66.07%
Median
42.79%
Q1
0.00%
Min
0.00%

IONQ has a Dividend Payout Ratio of 0%, indicating it does not currently pay a dividend. This is a common strategy for growth-oriented companies that reinvest all profits back into the business.

UBER

0.00%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
137.07%
Q3
74.71%
Median
41.16%
Q1
15.12%
Min
0.00%

UBER has a Dividend Payout Ratio of 0%, indicating it does not currently pay a dividend. This is a common strategy for growth-oriented companies that reinvest all profits back into the business.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolIONQUBER
Dividend Yield (TTM)0.00%0.00%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)0.00%0.00%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

IONQ

--

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
43.16
Q3
27.56
Median
17.85
Q1
12.48
Min
6.21

P/E Ratio data for IONQ is currently unavailable.

UBER

15.49

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
42.59
Q3
24.86
Median
16.38
Q1
12.79
Min
4.37

UBER’s P/E Ratio of 15.49 is within the middle range for the Ground Transportation industry. This suggests its valuation is in line with the sector average, representing neither a significant premium nor a discount compared to its peers.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

IONQ

208.53

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
4.27
Q3
1.99
Median
0.93
Q1
0.45
Min
0.04

With a P/S Ratio of 208.53, IONQ trades at a valuation that eclipses even the highest in the Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals industry. This implies the market has priced in exceptionally optimistic scenarios for future revenue growth, posing considerable valuation risk.

UBER

4.13

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
4.02
Q3
2.20
Median
1.23
Q1
0.87
Min
0.22

With a P/S Ratio of 4.13, UBER trades at a valuation that eclipses even the highest in the Ground Transportation industry. This implies the market has priced in exceptionally optimistic scenarios for future revenue growth, posing considerable valuation risk.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

IONQ

9.68

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Industry

Max
12.51
Q3
6.11
Median
1.73
Q1
1.01
Min
0.31

IONQ’s P/B Ratio of 9.68 is in the upper tier for the Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals industry. This indicates that investors are paying a premium relative to the company’s net assets, a valuation that hinges on its ability to generate superior profits.

UBER

8.63

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
4.95
Q3
2.78
Median
1.38
Q1
1.17
Min
0.64

At 8.63, UBER’s P/B Ratio is at an extreme premium to the Ground Transportation industry. This signifies that the market’s valuation is heavily reliant on future potential rather than its current net asset value, which can be a high-risk proposition.

IONQ vs. UBER: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolIONQUBER
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)--15.49
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)208.534.13
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)9.688.63
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)--22.90