Education & Training Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
AFYA vs STRA vs PRDO vs LAUR vs GHC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Education & Training Services
Education & Training Services
Education & Training Services
Education & Training Services
AFYA vs STRA vs PRDO vs LAUR vs GHC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Education & Training Services | Education & Training Services | Education & Training Services | Education & Training Services | Education & Training Services |
| Market Cap | $1.26B | $1.82B | $2.26B | $4.68B | $4.94B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.71B | $1.27B | $855M | $1.74B | $3.75B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $755M | $130M | $170M | $280M | $298M |
| Gross Margin | 64.5% | 37.4% | 51.8% | 26.9% | 27.7% |
| Operating Margin | 32.7% | 14.0% | 24.3% | 24.0% | 7.1% |
| Forward P/E | 1.5x | 11.2x | 12.6x | 15.3x | 17.2x |
| Total Debt | $3.12B | $109M | $105M | $847M | $1.73B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.12B | $141M | $132M | $147M | $267M |
AFYA vs STRA vs PRDO vs LAUR vs GHC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Afya Limited (AFYA) | 100 | 70.9 | -29.1% |
| Strategic Education… (STRA) | 100 | 47.3 | -52.7% |
| Perdoceo Education … (PRDO) | 100 | 221.4 | +121.4% |
| Laureate Education,… (LAUR) | 100 | 337.2 | +237.2% |
| Graham Holdings Com… (GHC) | 100 | 317.2 | +217.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AFYA vs STRA vs PRDO vs LAUR vs GHC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AFYA is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Rev growth 9.7%, EPS growth 17.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 15.9%
- PEG 0.05 vs GHC's 6.31
- Lower P/E (1.5x vs 17.2x), PEG 0.05 vs 6.31
- 20.3% margin vs GHC's 7.9%
STRA ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 3.1% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs GHC's 0.6%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
PRDO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 5 yrs, beta 0.30, yield 1.5%
- 5.3% 10Y total return vs LAUR's 221.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.30, Low D/E 10.8%, current ratio 5.06x
- Beta 0.30, yield 1.5%, current ratio 5.06x
LAUR is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +44.3% vs AFYA's -24.8%
Among these 5 stocks, GHC doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 24.2% revenue growth vs GHC's 2.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (1.5x vs 17.2x), PEG 0.05 vs 6.31 | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.3% margin vs GHC's 7.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.30 vs GHC's 0.86, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.1% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs GHC's 0.6%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +44.3% vs AFYA's -24.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.2% ROA vs GHC's 3.7%, ROIC 15.3% vs 3.3% |
AFYA vs STRA vs PRDO vs LAUR vs GHC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
AFYA vs STRA vs PRDO vs LAUR vs GHC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AFYA leads in 2 of 6 categories
PRDO leads 2 • STRA leads 0 • LAUR leads 0 • GHC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AFYA leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GHC is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.7B annually — 4.4x PRDO's $855M. AFYA is the more profitable business, keeping 20.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GHC's 7.9%. On growth, LAUR holds the edge at +15.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3.7B | $1.3B | $855M | $1.7B | $3.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.5B | $216M | $247M | $535M | $394M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $755M | $130M | $170M | $280M | $298M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1.2B | $174M | $221M | $264M | $286M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +64.5% | +37.4% | +51.8% | +26.9% | +27.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +32.7% | +14.0% | +24.3% | +24.0% | +7.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +20.3% | +10.2% | +19.9% | +16.1% | +7.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +31.1% | +13.7% | +25.8% | +15.2% | +7.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.2% | +0.8% | +4.1% | +15.4% | -100.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +16.4% | +19.4% | +30.8% | -15.4% | +805.7% |
Valuation Metrics
AFYA leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 8.5x trailing earnings, AFYA trades at a 51% valuation discount to LAUR's 17.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AFYA offers better value at 0.40x vs GHC's 6.29x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.3B | $1.8B | $2.3B | $4.7B | $4.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.7B | $1.8B | $2.2B | $5.4B | $6.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 8.51x | 14.79x | 14.89x | 17.36x | 17.10x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 1.47x | 11.16x | 12.60x | 15.28x | 17.15x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.40x | 1.96x | 2.18x | — | 6.29x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.93x | 7.32x | 9.40x | 9.94x | 15.12x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.72x | 1.44x | 2.67x | 2.75x | 1.01x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.29x | 1.11x | 2.45x | 4.10x | 1.02x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.03x | 11.84x | 10.43x | 17.80x | 18.46x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — STRA and PRDO and LAUR each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LAUR delivers a 25.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $25 in annual profit, vs $6 for GHC. STRA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.07x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to LAUR's 0.71x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), AFYA scores 8/9 vs GHC's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +16.1% | +7.9% | +17.2% | +25.4% | +6.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +8.2% | +6.2% | +13.2% | +12.9% | +3.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +13.3% | +9.0% | +15.3% | +20.3% | +3.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +14.7% | +10.7% | +17.5% | +26.7% | +3.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.64x | 0.07x | 0.11x | 0.71x | 0.36x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.0B | -$32M | -$27M | $701M | $1.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.1B | $141M | $132M | $147M | $267M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3.1B | $109M | $105M | $847M | $1.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.70x | — | 50.21x | 34.91x | 10.06x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PRDO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in PRDO five years ago would be worth $31,234 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,598 for AFYA. Over the past 12 months, LAUR leads with a +44.3% total return vs AFYA's -24.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PRDO at 45.7% vs STRA's 1.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -2.4% | +2.8% | +24.4% | -1.5% | +4.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -24.8% | -6.4% | +21.5% | +44.3% | +17.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +34.0% | +5.1% | +209.0% | +180.4% | +99.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -34.0% | +16.4% | +212.3% | +201.3% | +75.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -38.5% | +117.3% | +532.6% | +221.6% | +148.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +10.2% | +1.7% | +45.7% | +41.0% | +26.0% |
Risk & Volatility
PRDO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
PRDO is the less volatile stock with a 0.30 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GHC's 0.86 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. PRDO currently trades 93.6% from its 52-week high vs AFYA's 70.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.54x | 0.49x | 0.30x | 0.56x | 0.86x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $19.90 | $93.45 | $38.50 | $37.91 | $1224.76 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $13.00 | $69.70 | $26.66 | $21.16 | $882.21 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +70.0% | +85.8% | +93.6% | +86.5% | +92.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.2 | 48.8 | 48.3 | 47.5 | 52.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 97K | 310K | 585K | 1.9M | 19K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — STRA and GHC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AFYA as "Hold", STRA as "Buy", PRDO as "Hold", LAUR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 22.1% upside for PRDO (target: $44) vs 8.5% for STRA (target: $87). For income investors, STRA offers the higher dividend yield at 3.15% vs GHC's 0.63%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy | — |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $16.33 | $87.00 | $44.00 | $39.00 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 8 | 18 | 9 | 11 | — |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.1% | +1.5% | +0.0% | +0.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 9 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.52 | $0.56 | $0.00 | $7.17 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.2% | +7.6% | +5.3% | +4.6% | +0.1% |
AFYA leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). PRDO leads in 2 (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). 2 tied.
AFYA vs STRA vs PRDO vs LAUR vs GHC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AFYA or STRA or PRDO or LAUR or GHC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) is the stronger pick with 24.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 5% for Graham Holdings Company (GHC). Afya Limited (AFYA) offers the better valuation at 8. 5x trailing P/E (1. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Strategic Education, Inc. (STRA) a "Buy" — based on 18 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — AFYA or STRA or PRDO or LAUR or GHC?
On trailing P/E, Afya Limited (AFYA) is the cheapest at 8.
5x versus Laureate Education, Inc. at 17. 4x. On forward P/E, Afya Limited is actually cheaper at 1. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Afya Limited wins at 0. 05x versus Graham Holdings Company's 6. 31x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AFYA or STRA or PRDO or LAUR or GHC?
Over the past 5 years, Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) delivered a total return of +212.
3%, compared to -34. 0% for Afya Limited (AFYA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PRDO returned +532. 6% versus AFYA's -38. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — AFYA or STRA or PRDO or LAUR or GHC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
30β versus Graham Holdings Company's 0. 86β — meaning GHC is approximately 189% more volatile than PRDO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Strategic Education, Inc. (STRA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 71% for Laureate Education, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AFYA or STRA or PRDO or LAUR or GHC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) is pulling ahead at 24.
2% versus 2. 5% for Graham Holdings Company (GHC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Afya Limited grew EPS 17. 0% year-over-year, compared to -59. 3% for Graham Holdings Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, AFYA leads at 15. 9% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — AFYA or STRA or PRDO or LAUR or GHC?
Afya Limited (AFYA) is the more profitable company, earning 20.
4% net margin versus 6. 0% for Graham Holdings Company — meaning it keeps 20. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AFYA leads at 32. 8% versus 5. 1% for GHC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PRDO leads at 71. 7%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is AFYA or STRA or PRDO or LAUR or GHC more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Afya Limited (AFYA) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 05x versus Graham Holdings Company's 6. 31x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Afya Limited (AFYA) trades at 1. 5x forward P/E versus 17. 2x for Graham Holdings Company — 15. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PRDO: 22. 1% to $44. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — AFYA or STRA or PRDO or LAUR or GHC?
In this comparison, STRA (3.
1% yield), PRDO (1. 5% yield), GHC (0. 6% yield) pay a dividend. AFYA, LAUR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is AFYA or STRA or PRDO or LAUR or GHC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
30), 1. 5% yield, +532. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (PRDO: +532. 6%, AFYA: -38. 5%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between AFYA and STRA and PRDO and LAUR and GHC?
Both stocks operate in the Consumer Defensive sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: AFYA is a small-cap deep-value stock; STRA is a small-cap deep-value stock; PRDO is a small-cap high-growth stock; LAUR is a small-cap deep-value stock; GHC is a small-cap deep-value stock. STRA, PRDO, GHC pay a dividend while AFYA, LAUR do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.