Real Estate - Development
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
AMBR vs BTBT vs CIFR vs WULF vs IREN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
AMBR vs BTBT vs CIFR vs WULF vs IREN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Real Estate - Development | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets |
| Market Cap | $8M | $589M | $8.40B | $10.55B | $18.86B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $100M | $164M | $224M | $140M | $501M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-4M | $137M | $-898M | $-564M | $402M |
| Gross Margin | 41.0% | 61.9% | 28.4% | 55.3% | 68.3% |
| Operating Margin | -31.4% | 16.8% | -150.7% | -54.4% | 3.5% |
| Forward P/E | 14.7x | 9.2x | — | — | 139.2x |
| Total Debt | $3M | $14M | $2.77B | $491M | $964M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20M | $95M | $628M | $274M | $565M |
AMBR vs BTBT vs CIFR vs WULF vs IREN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 25 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amber International… (AMBR) | 100 | 18.4 | -81.6% |
| Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) | 100 | 90.6 | -9.4% |
| Cipher Mining Inc. (CIFR) | 100 | 899.3 | +799.3% |
| TeraWulf Inc. (WULF) | 100 | 879.9 | +779.9% |
| IREN Limited (IREN) | 100 | 933.5 | +833.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AMBR vs BTBT vs CIFR vs WULF vs IREN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AMBR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.99, Low D/E 21.1%, current ratio 1.45x
- Beta 1.99 vs CIFR's 3.87, lower leverage
BTBT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 264.6%, EPS growth 225.0%
- 264.6% NII/revenue growth vs AMBR's -75.4%
- Lower P/E (9.2x vs 139.2x)
- 0.3% yield; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
CIFR lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
WULF is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 3.25
- 161.2% 10Y total return vs IREN's 132.5%
- Beta 3.25, current ratio 5.43x
IREN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and momentum is your priority.
- 17.4% margin vs CIFR's -367.2%
- +7.7% vs AMBR's -77.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 264.6% NII/revenue growth vs AMBR's -75.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.2x vs 139.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 17.4% margin vs CIFR's -367.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.99 vs CIFR's 3.87, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 0.3% yield; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +7.7% vs AMBR's -77.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.0% ROA vs CIFR's -24.7%, ROIC 6.5% vs -11.7% |
AMBR vs BTBT vs CIFR vs WULF vs IREN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
AMBR vs BTBT vs CIFR vs WULF vs IREN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AMBR leads in 1 of 6 categories
BTBT leads 1 • WULF leads 1 • CIFR leads 0 • IREN leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — BTBT and IREN each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
IREN is the larger business by revenue, generating $501M annually — 5.0x AMBR's $100M. IREN is the more profitable business, keeping 17.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CIFR's -3.7%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $100M | $164M | $224M | $140M | $501M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$16M | $166M | -$203M | -$72M | $172M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$4M | $137M | -$898M | -$564M | $402M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$1M | -$448M | -$930M | -$677M | -$260M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +41.0% | +61.9% | +28.4% | +55.3% | +68.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -31.4% | +16.8% | -150.7% | -54.4% | +3.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -3.8% | +17.3% | -3.7% | -51.7% | +17.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -1.4% | -65.3% | -3.1% | -2.1% | -2.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +58.7% | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +75.0% | +2.8% | -154.5% | -17.7% | -7.1% |
Valuation Metrics
AMBR leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.2x trailing earnings, BTBT trades at a 94% valuation discount to IREN's 145.8x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, BTBT's 8.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than IREN's 97.1x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $8M | $589M | $8.4B | $10.5B | $18.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$9M | $508M | $10.5B | $10.8B | $19.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.16x | 9.15x | -9.62x | -114.38x | 145.77x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 14.67x | — | — | — | 139.17x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 8.49x | — | — | 97.06x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.24x | 3.60x | 37.49x | 75.33x | 37.64x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.31x | 0.56x | 9.44x | 34.52x | 6.98x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
BTBT leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
BTBT delivers a 21.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $21 in annual profit, vs $-2 for WULF. BTBT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.03x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CIFR's 3.31x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BTBT scores 6/9 vs WULF's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -7.3% | +21.4% | -115.5% | -2.3% | +18.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -2.1% | +19.0% | -24.7% | -23.0% | +9.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -88.1% | +6.5% | -11.7% | -10.6% | +0.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -58.1% | +8.5% | -15.6% | -15.9% | +0.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.21x | 0.03x | 3.31x | 2.01x | 0.53x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$17M | -$81M | $2.1B | $217M | $400M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20M | $95M | $628M | $274M | $565M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3M | $14M | $2.8B | $491M | $964M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -46.11x | — | -32.12x | -27.06x | 16.60x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — WULF and IREN each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WULF five years ago would be worth $28,202 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,543 for BTBT. Over the past 12 months, IREN leads with a +765.3% total return vs AMBR's -77.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IREN at 158.8% vs AMBR's -34.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +10.6% | -10.3% | +27.7% | +88.5% | +33.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -77.5% | -9.0% | +584.9% | +687.5% | +765.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -71.8% | -19.7% | +960.8% | +1338.3% | +1633.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -71.8% | -84.6% | +107.9% | +182.0% | +132.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -71.8% | -60.4% | +108.9% | +161.2% | +132.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -34.4% | -7.1% | +119.7% | +143.2% | +158.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — AMBR and WULF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
AMBR is the less volatile stock with a 1.99 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CIFR's 3.87 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WULF currently trades 93.3% from its 52-week high vs AMBR's 17.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.99x | 3.37x | 3.87x | 3.25x | 2.97x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $12.84 | $4.55 | $25.52 | $25.75 | $76.87 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.23 | $1.25 | $2.95 | $2.89 | $6.36 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +17.1% | +40.2% | +81.1% | +93.3% | +74.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 42.2 | 69.1 | 67.5 | 73.6 | 71.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 62K | 18.5M | 24.9M | 30.4M | 34.5M |
Analyst Outlook
WULF leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AMBR as "Buy", BTBT as "Buy", CIFR as "Buy", WULF as "Buy", IREN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 173.2% upside for BTBT (target: $5) vs 32.9% for IREN (target: $76). BTBT is the only dividend payer here at 0.31% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $3.50 | $5.00 | $27.86 | $32.13 | $75.57 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 5 | 2 | 12 | 12 | 13 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.3% | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.01 | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.1% | +1.1% | 0.0% |
AMBR leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). BTBT leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
AMBR vs BTBT vs CIFR vs WULF vs IREN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AMBR or BTBT or CIFR or WULF or IREN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Bit Digital, Inc.
(BTBT) is the stronger pick with 264. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -75. 4% for Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR). Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) offers the better valuation at 9. 2x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR) a "Buy" — based on 5 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 — AMBR or BTBT or CIFR or WULF or IREN?
On trailing P/E, Bit Digital, Inc.
(BTBT) is the cheapest at 9. 2x versus IREN Limited at 145. 8x. On forward P/E, Amber International Holding Ltd is actually cheaper at 14. 7x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AMBR or BTBT or CIFR or WULF or IREN?
Over the past 5 years, TeraWulf Inc.
(WULF) delivered a total return of +182. 0%, compared to -84. 6% for Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WULF returned +161. 2% versus AMBR's -71. 8%. 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 — AMBR or BTBT or CIFR or WULF or IREN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
99β versus Cipher Mining Inc. 's 3. 87β — meaning CIFR is approximately 95% more volatile than AMBR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 3% for Cipher Mining Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AMBR or BTBT or CIFR or WULF or IREN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Bit Digital, Inc.
(BTBT) is pulling ahead at 264. 6% versus -75. 4% for Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: IREN Limited grew EPS 234. 5% year-over-year, compared to -1435. 7% for Cipher Mining Inc.. 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 — AMBR or BTBT or CIFR or WULF or IREN?
IREN Limited (IREN) is the more profitable company, earning 17.
4% net margin versus -367. 2% for Cipher Mining Inc. — meaning it keeps 17. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BTBT leads at 16. 8% versus -150. 7% for CIFR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IREN leads at 68. 3%, 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 AMBR or BTBT or CIFR or WULF or IREN more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR) trades at 14.
7x forward P/E versus 139. 2x for IREN Limited — 124. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BTBT: 173. 2% to $5. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — AMBR or BTBT or CIFR or WULF or IREN?
In this comparison, BTBT (0.
3% yield) pays a dividend. AMBR, CIFR, WULF, IREN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is AMBR or BTBT or CIFR or WULF or IREN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, TeraWulf Inc.
(WULF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+161. 2% 10Y return). Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) carries a higher beta of 3. 37 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (WULF: +161. 2%, BTBT: -60. 4%), 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 AMBR and BTBT and CIFR and WULF and IREN?
These companies operate in different sectors (AMBR (Real Estate) and BTBT (Financial Services) and CIFR (Financial Services) and WULF (Financial Services) and IREN (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: AMBR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BTBT is a small-cap high-growth stock; CIFR is a small-cap high-growth stock; WULF is a mid-cap high-growth stock; IREN is a mid-cap high-growth stock. 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.