Real Estate - Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ASPS vs FAF vs PFSI vs STC vs RKT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Specialty
Financial - Mortgages
Insurance - Property & Casualty
Financial - Mortgages
ASPS vs FAF vs PFSI vs STC vs RKT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Real Estate - Services | Insurance - Specialty | Financial - Mortgages | Insurance - Property & Casualty | Financial - Mortgages |
| Market Cap | $77M | $7.14B | $4.62B | $2.13B | $39.90B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $175M | $6.01B | $4.36B | $2.92B | $6.88B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $6M | $673M | $507M | $116M | $-68M |
| Gross Margin | 27.8% | 74.3% | 91.4% | 87.7% | 91.6% |
| Operating Margin | 3.7% | 14.8% | 34.6% | 5.7% | 8.7% |
| Forward P/E | 45.3x | 10.9x | 7.2x | 11.5x | 19.3x |
| Total Debt | $192M | $1.91B | $23.06B | $891M | $0.00 |
| Cash & Equiv. | $27M | $1.39B | $302M | $322M | $2.70B |
ASPS vs FAF vs PFSI vs STC vs RKT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Aug 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Altisource Portfoli… (ASPS) | 100 | 7.5 | -92.5% |
| First American Fina… (FAF) | 100 | 132.7 | +32.7% |
| PennyMac Financial … (PFSI) | 100 | 168.2 | +68.2% |
| Stewart Information… (STC) | 100 | 163.6 | +63.6% |
| Rocket Companies, I… (RKT) | 100 | 50.5 | -49.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ASPS vs FAF vs PFSI vs STC vs RKT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ASPS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for efficiency.
- 4.5% ROA vs RKT's -0.2%, ROIC 11.5% vs 2.0%
FAF is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and growth exposure is your priority.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 0.59, yield 3.1%
- Rev growth 21.6%, EPS growth 376.2%, 3Y rev CAGR -0.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.59, Low D/E 34.7%
- Beta 0.59, yield 3.1%
PFSI carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding.
- 6.0% 10Y total return vs FAF's 138.4%
- 173.8% NII/revenue growth vs ASPS's 6.8%
- Lower P/E (7.2x vs 11.5x)
- 11.5% margin vs RKT's -1.0%
Among these 5 stocks, STC doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
RKT is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +21.6% vs ASPS's -13.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 173.8% NII/revenue growth vs ASPS's 6.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.2x vs 11.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 11.5% margin vs RKT's -1.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.59 vs RKT's 1.77 | |
| Dividends | 3.1% yield, 15-year raise streak, vs PFSI's 1.3%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +21.6% vs ASPS's -13.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 4.5% ROA vs RKT's -0.2%, ROIC 11.5% vs 2.0% |
ASPS vs FAF vs PFSI vs STC vs RKT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
ASPS vs FAF vs PFSI vs STC vs RKT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FAF leads in 1 of 6 categories
ASPS leads 0 • PFSI leads 0 • STC leads 0 • RKT leads 0 • 5 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — FAF and PFSI each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RKT is the larger business by revenue, generating $6.9B annually — 39.3x ASPS's $175M. PFSI is the more profitable business, keeping 11.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to RKT's -1.0%. On growth, STC holds the edge at +18.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $175M | $6.0B | $4.4B | $2.9B | $6.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $14M | $1.1B | $1.0B | $227M | $639M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $6M | $673M | $507M | $116M | -$68M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4M | $824M | -$3.8B | $132M | -$4.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +27.8% | +74.3% | +91.4% | +87.7% | +91.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.7% | +14.8% | +34.6% | +5.7% | +8.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +3.6% | +11.2% | +11.5% | +4.0% | -1.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +2.4% | +13.7% | -32.4% | +4.5% | -58.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.5% | -90.9% | — | +18.7% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +36.4% | +70.4% | +7.7% | +56.3% | -89.6% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — FAF and RKT each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.5x trailing earnings, PFSI trades at a 79% valuation discount to ASPS's 45.3x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, FAF's 7.3x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than RKT's 41.8x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $77M | $7.1B | $4.6B | $2.1B | $39.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $242M | $7.7B | $27.4B | $2.7B | $37.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 45.27x | 11.63x | 9.53x | 17.28x | -282.60x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 10.87x | 7.17x | 11.50x | 19.30x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 16.23x | 7.34x | 18.11x | 11.91x | 41.81x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.45x | 0.96x | 1.06x | 0.73x | 5.80x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 1.32x | 1.11x | 1.23x | 0.82x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 9.36x | — | 16.10x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — ASPS and FAF each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FAF delivers a 12.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $13 in annual profit, vs $-1 for RKT. FAF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.35x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PFSI's 5.35x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FAF scores 8/9 vs RKT's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | +12.5% | +12.0% | +7.7% | -0.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +4.5% | +4.0% | +1.8% | +4.0% | -0.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +11.5% | +10.7% | +4.4% | +6.2% | +2.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +158.5% | +5.3% | +10.4% | +5.5% | +1.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.35x | 5.35x | 0.54x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $166M | $519M | $22.8B | $569M | -$2.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $27M | $1.4B | $302M | $322M | $2.7B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $192M | $1.9B | $23.1B | $891M | $0 |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.16x | 6.45x | 1.35x | 8.82x | 0.43x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — PFSI and STC each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in PFSI five years ago would be worth $16,366 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,271 for ASPS. Over the past 12 months, RKT leads with a +21.6% total return vs ASPS's -13.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors STC at 21.5% vs ASPS's -42.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -2.6% | +15.1% | -32.4% | +0.5% | -28.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -13.8% | +17.8% | -8.0% | +11.5% | +21.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -80.6% | +30.7% | +59.2% | +79.3% | +77.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -87.3% | +20.7% | +63.7% | +28.1% | -11.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.2% | +138.4% | +603.4% | +133.4% | -20.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -42.1% | +9.3% | +16.8% | +21.5% | +21.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — ASPS and FAF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ASPS is the less volatile stock with a -0.33 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RKT's 1.77 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FAF currently trades 97.6% from its 52-week high vs ASPS's 42.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.33x | 0.59x | 0.93x | 0.78x | 1.77x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $15.96 | $71.47 | $160.36 | $78.61 | $24.36 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.30 | $53.09 | $82.67 | $56.39 | $11.08 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +42.5% | +97.6% | +55.3% | +88.8% | +58.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.4 | 62.4 | 40.4 | 57.6 | 45.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 29K | 945K | 604K | 204K | 25.0M |
Analyst Outlook
FAF leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FAF as "Buy", PFSI as "Buy", STC as "Buy", RKT as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 61.3% upside for PFSI (target: $143) vs 15.3% for STC (target: $81). For income investors, FAF offers the higher dividend yield at 3.08% vs PFSI's 1.31%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $83.00 | $143.00 | $80.50 | $21.63 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 15 | 20 | 8 | 25 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.1% | +1.3% | +2.9% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 15 | 2 | 15 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.15 | $1.16 | $2.01 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.0% | +1.7% | +0.1% | +0.2% | 0.0% |
FAF leads in 1 of 6 categories — strongest in Analyst Outlook. 5 categories are tied.
ASPS vs FAF vs PFSI vs STC vs RKT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ASPS or FAF or PFSI or STC or RKT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.
(PFSI) is the stronger pick with 173. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 6. 8% for Altisource Portfolio Solutions S. A. (ASPS). PennyMac Financial Services, Inc. (PFSI) offers the better valuation at 9. 5x trailing P/E (7. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate First American Financial Corporation (FAF) a "Buy" — based on 15 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 — ASPS or FAF or PFSI or STC or RKT?
On trailing P/E, PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.
(PFSI) is the cheapest at 9. 5x versus Altisource Portfolio Solutions S. A. at 45. 3x. On forward P/E, PennyMac Financial Services, Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 2x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ASPS or FAF or PFSI or STC or RKT?
Over the past 5 years, PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.
(PFSI) delivered a total return of +63. 7%, compared to -87. 3% for Altisource Portfolio Solutions S. A. (ASPS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PFSI returned +603. 4% versus ASPS's -97. 2%. 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 — ASPS or FAF or PFSI or STC or RKT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.
A. (ASPS) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 33β versus Rocket Companies, Inc. 's 1. 77β — meaning RKT is approximately -631% more volatile than ASPS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, First American Financial Corporation (FAF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 35% versus 5% for PennyMac Financial Services, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ASPS or FAF or PFSI or STC or RKT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.
(PFSI) is pulling ahead at 173. 8% versus 6. 8% for Altisource Portfolio Solutions S. A. (ASPS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: First American Financial Corporation grew EPS 376. 2% year-over-year, compared to -123. 8% for Rocket Companies, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ASPS leads at 3. 7% 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 — ASPS or FAF or PFSI or STC or RKT?
PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.
(PFSI) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 5% net margin versus -1. 0% for Rocket Companies, Inc. — meaning it keeps 11. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PFSI leads at 34. 6% versus 4. 6% for ASPS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FAF leads at 95. 6%, 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 ASPS or FAF or PFSI or STC or RKT more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.
(PFSI) trades at 7. 2x forward P/E versus 19. 3x for Rocket Companies, Inc. — 12. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PFSI: 61. 3% to $143. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ASPS or FAF or PFSI or STC or RKT?
In this comparison, FAF (3.
1% yield), STC (2. 9% yield), PFSI (1. 3% yield) pay a dividend. ASPS, RKT do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ASPS or FAF or PFSI or STC or RKT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.
A. (ASPS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 33)). Rocket Companies, Inc. (RKT) carries a higher beta of 1. 77 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ASPS: -97. 2%, RKT: -20. 7%), 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 ASPS and FAF and PFSI and STC and RKT?
These companies operate in different sectors (ASPS (Real Estate) and FAF (Financial Services) and PFSI (Financial Services) and STC (Financial Services) and RKT (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: ASPS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FAF is a small-cap high-growth stock; PFSI is a small-cap high-growth stock; STC is a small-cap high-growth stock; RKT is a mid-cap high-growth stock. FAF, PFSI, STC pay a dividend while ASPS, RKT 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.