PYPL vs. WF: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on August 24, 2025

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

Company Profile

PYPL is a standard domestic listing, while WF trades as an American Depositary Receipt (ADR), offering U.S. investors access to its foreign-listed shares.

Symbol	PYPL	WF
Company Name	PayPal Holdings, Inc.	Woori Financial Group Inc.
Country	United States	South Korea
GICS Sector	Financials	Financials
GICS Industry	Financial Services	Banks
Market Capitalization	65.04 billion USD	13.07 billion USD
Exchange	NasdaqGS	NYSE
Listing Date	July 6, 2015	October 1, 2003
Security Type	Common Stock	ADR

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of PYPL and WF 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.

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

Historical Performance at a Glance

Symbol	PYPL	WF
5-Day Price Return	-1.87%	-1.78%
13-Week Price Return	-5.86%	39.01%
26-Week Price Return	-11.11%	51.22%
52-Week Price Return	-1.94%	5.12%
Month-to-Date Return	-0.99%	0.40%
Year-to-Date Return	-20.23%	61.35%
10-Day Avg. Volume	9.83M	1.34M
3-Month Avg. Volume	10.36M	2.18M
3-Month Volatility	32.89%	35.47%
Beta	1.45	1.00

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

PYPL

23.09%

Financial Services Industry

Max: 40.58%
Q3: 20.06%
Median: 10.67%
Q1: 4.19%
Min: -10.31%

In the upper quartile for the Financial Services industry, PYPL’s Return on Equity of 23.09% signals a highly effective use of shareholder capital to drive profitability compared to most of its peers.

WF

8.49%

Banks Industry

Max: 26.37%
Q3: 15.92%
Median: 12.25%
Q1: 8.69%
Min: 0.15%

WF’s Return on Equity of 8.49% is in the lower quartile for the Banks industry. This indicates a less efficient generation of profit from its equity base when compared to its competitors.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

PYPL

14.49%

Financial Services Industry

Max: 52.86%
Q3: 25.58%
Median: 12.23%
Q1: 6.64%
Min: -9.92%

PYPL’s Net Profit Margin of 14.49% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Financial Services industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

WF

19.91%

Banks Industry

Max: 54.20%
Q3: 35.70%
Median: 28.97%
Q1: 22.53%
Min: 6.98%

Falling into the lower quartile for the Banks industry, WF’s Net Profit Margin of 19.91% indicates weaker profitability. This means the company retains a smaller portion of each dollar in sales as profit compared to its competitors.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

PYPL

18.17%

Financial Services Industry

Max: 77.28%
Q3: 37.68%
Median: 18.17%
Q1: 9.27%
Min: -8.19%

PYPL’s Operating Profit Margin of 18.17% is around the midpoint for the Financial Services industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

WF

26.81%

Banks Industry

Max: 63.35%
Q3: 44.59%
Median: 37.24%
Q1: 28.25%
Min: 13.37%

WF’s Operating Profit Margin of 26.81% is in the lower quartile for the Banks industry. This indicates weaker profitability from core operations, which may stem from inefficiencies or competitive pressures on pricing.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

Symbol	PYPL	WF
Return on Equity (TTM)	23.09%	8.49%
Return on Assets (TTM)	5.74%	0.54%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)	14.49%	19.91%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)	18.17%	26.81%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)	41.68%	--

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

PYPL

1.33

Financial Services Industry

Max: 4.58
Q3: 2.59
Median: 1.33
Q1: 0.69
Min: 0.01

For the Financial Services industry, the Current Ratio is often not the most suitable measure of short-term liquidity.

WF

Banks Industry

Max: --
Q3: --
Median: --
Q1: --
Min: --

For the Banks industry, the Current Ratio is often not the most suitable measure of short-term liquidity.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

PYPL

0.56

Financial Services Industry

Max: 4.96
Q3: 2.10
Median: 0.57
Q1: 0.12
Min: 0.00

The Debt-to-Equity Ratio is often not the primary focus for assessing leverage in the Financial Services industry.

WF

2.50

Banks Industry

Max: 4.75
Q3: 2.62
Median: 1.02
Q1: 0.39
Min: 0.00

The Debt-to-Equity Ratio is often not the primary focus for assessing leverage in the Banks industry.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

PYPL

1,066.80

Financial Services Industry

Max: 136.23
Q3: 56.08
Median: 6.55
Q1: 2.01
Min: -33.27

The Interest Coverage Ratio is often not a primary indicator of debt servicing capacity in the Financial Services industry.

WF

Banks Industry

Max: --
Q3: --
Median: --
Q1: --
Min: --

The Interest Coverage Ratio is often not a primary indicator of debt servicing capacity in the Banks industry.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

Symbol	PYPL	WF
Current Ratio (MRQ)	1.33	--
Quick Ratio (MRQ)	1.28	--
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)	0.56	2.50
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)	1,066.80	--

Growth

Revenue Growth

PYPL vs. WF: 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

PYPL vs. WF: 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)

PYPL

0.00%

Financial Services Industry

Max: 8.18%
Q3: 3.60%
Median: 1.56%
Q1: 0.00%
Min: 0.00%

PYPL 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.

WF

4.94%

Banks Industry

Max: 10.27%
Q3: 5.83%
Median: 3.81%
Q1: 2.50%
Min: 0.00%

WF’s Dividend Yield of 4.94% is consistent with its peers in the Banks industry, providing a dividend return that is standard for its sector.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

PYPL

0.00%

Financial Services Industry

Max: 155.56%
Q3: 63.71%
Median: 18.08%
Q1: 0.00%
Min: 0.00%

PYPL 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.

WF

39.77%

Banks Industry

Max: 147.07%
Q3: 80.55%
Median: 54.40%
Q1: 35.71%
Min: 0.00%

WF’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 39.77% is within the typical range for the Banks industry, suggesting a balanced approach between shareholder payouts and company reinvestment.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

Symbol	PYPL	WF
Dividend Yield (TTM)	0.00%	4.94%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)	0.00%	39.77%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

PYPL

13.89

Financial Services Industry

Max: 63.23
Q3: 32.10
Median: 14.41
Q1: 10.81
Min: 0.37

PYPL’s P/E Ratio of 13.89 is within the middle range for the Financial Services industry. This suggests its valuation is in line with the sector average, representing neither a significant premium nor a discount compared to its peers.

WF

6.32

Banks Industry

Max: 20.05
Q3: 12.65
Median: 10.21
Q1: 7.54
Min: 2.74

In the lower quartile for the Banks industry, WF’s P/E Ratio of 6.32 suggests the stock may be undervalued compared to its peers, potentially presenting an attractive entry point for investors.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

PYPL

2.01

Financial Services Industry

Max: 11.16
Q3: 5.45
Median: 2.61
Q1: 1.25
Min: 0.04

The P/S Ratio is often not a primary valuation tool in the Financial Services industry.

WF

0.62

Banks Industry

Max: 5.06
Q3: 2.98
Median: 2.24
Q1: 1.59
Min: 0.45

The P/S Ratio is often not a primary valuation tool in the Banks industry.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

PYPL

3.58

Financial Services Industry

Max: 7.09
Q3: 3.79
Median: 1.46
Q1: 0.83
Min: 0.04

PYPL’s P/B Ratio of 3.58 is within the conventional range for the Financial Services industry. This shows a balanced market view, where the stock’s price is neither at a significant premium nor a discount to the book value of its peers.

WF

0.48

Banks Industry

Max: 2.18
Q3: 1.36
Median: 1.09
Q1: 0.81
Min: 0.20

WF’s P/B Ratio of 0.48 is in the lower quartile for the Banks industry. From a value investing perspective, this is favorable, as it suggests the stock is trading at a discount to its net asset value and may offer a greater margin of safety.

PYPL vs. WF: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Financial Services and Banks industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

Symbol	PYPL	WF
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)	13.89	6.32
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)	2.01	0.62
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)	3.58	0.48
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)	12.29	10.78