Financial - Capital Markets
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BTBT vs MARA vs RIOT vs CLSK vs CIFR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
Software - Application
Financial - Capital Markets
BTBT vs MARA vs RIOT vs CLSK vs CIFR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Software - Application | Financial - Capital Markets |
| Market Cap | $589M | $4.83B | $9.14B | $3.58B | $8.40B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $164M | $907M | $647M | $785M | $224M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $137M | $-1.31B | $-867M | $-261M | $-898M |
| Gross Margin | 61.9% | -47.7% | -15.6% | 41.4% | 28.4% |
| Operating Margin | 16.8% | -90.6% | -61.8% | -26.4% | -150.7% |
| Forward P/E | 9.2x | — | — | 12.5x | — |
| Total Debt | $14M | $3.65B | $280M | $824M | $2.77B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $95M | $547M | $234M | $43M | $628M |
BTBT vs MARA vs RIOT vs CLSK vs CIFR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) | 100 | 48.8 | -51.2% |
| Marathon Digital Ho… (MARA) | 100 | 588.0 | +488.0% |
| Riot Platforms, Inc. (RIOT) | 100 | 737.3 | +637.3% |
| CleanSpark, Inc. (CLSK) | 100 | 185.2 | +85.2% |
| Cipher Mining Inc. (CIFR) | 100 | 210.0 | +110.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BTBT vs MARA vs RIOT vs CLSK vs CIFR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BTBT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 3.37, yield 0.3%
- Rev growth 264.6%, EPS growth 225.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 3.37, Low D/E 3.0%, current ratio 5.39x
- Beta 3.37, yield 0.3%, current ratio 5.39x
MARA is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if stability is your priority.
- Beta 3.11 vs CIFR's 3.87, lower leverage
RIOT lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, CLSK doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
CIFR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 108.9% 10Y total return vs RIOT's 7.9%
- +5.8% vs BTBT's -9.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 264.6% NII/revenue growth vs MARA's 38.2% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 17.3% margin vs CIFR's -367.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 3.11 vs CIFR's 3.87, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 0.3% yield, vs CLSK's 0.2%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +5.8% vs BTBT's -9.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.0% ROA vs CIFR's -24.7%, ROIC 6.5% vs -11.7% |
BTBT vs MARA vs RIOT vs CLSK vs CIFR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
BTBT vs MARA vs RIOT vs CLSK vs CIFR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BTBT leads in 3 of 6 categories
CIFR leads 1 • MARA leads 0 • RIOT leads 0 • CLSK leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BTBT leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MARA is the larger business by revenue, generating $907M annually — 5.5x BTBT's $164M. BTBT is the more profitable business, keeping 17.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CIFR's -3.7%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $164M | $907M | $647M | $785M | $224M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $166M | $627M | -$450M | $181M | -$203M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $137M | -$1.3B | -$867M | -$261M | -$898M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$448M | -$312M | -$1.0B | -$1.0B | -$930M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +61.9% | -47.7% | -15.6% | +41.4% | +28.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +16.8% | -90.6% | -61.8% | -26.4% | -150.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +17.3% | -144.6% | -102.4% | -33.2% | -3.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -65.3% | -34.4% | -119.6% | -133.1% | -3.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | +11.6% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.8% | -4.8% | -60.0% | -2.6% | -154.5% |
Valuation Metrics
BTBT leads this category, winning 2 of 4 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.2x trailing earnings, BTBT trades at a 27% valuation discount to CLSK's 12.5x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, CLSK's 6.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than BTBT's 8.5x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $589M | $4.8B | $9.1B | $3.6B | $8.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $508M | $7.9B | $9.2B | $4.4B | $10.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 9.15x | -3.44x | -12.36x | 12.48x | -9.62x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.49x | — | — | 6.53x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.60x | 5.32x | 14.12x | 4.67x | 37.49x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.56x | 1.30x | 2.87x | 2.04x | 9.44x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
BTBT leads this category, winning 6 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 $-116 for CIFR. 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 CIFR's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +21.4% | -30.5% | -28.8% | -13.7% | -115.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +19.0% | -17.1% | -21.5% | -8.5% | -24.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.5% | -9.0% | -8.7% | +10.3% | -11.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.5% | -12.1% | -11.0% | +13.7% | -15.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.03x | 1.05x | 0.10x | 0.38x | 3.31x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$81M | $3.1B | $46M | $781M | $2.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $95M | $547M | $234M | $43M | $628M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $14M | $3.6B | $280M | $824M | $2.8B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 4.73x | -16.47x | -18.49x | -32.12x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CIFR leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CIFR five years ago would be worth $20,789 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,543 for BTBT. Over the past 12 months, CIFR leads with a +584.9% total return vs BTBT's -9.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CIFR at 119.7% vs BTBT's -7.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -10.3% | +28.2% | +70.3% | +21.0% | +27.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -9.0% | -4.7% | +207.5% | +74.1% | +584.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.7% | +36.1% | +129.8% | +229.7% | +960.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -84.6% | -59.5% | -27.8% | -26.9% | +107.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -60.4% | -51.6% | +787.3% | -84.3% | +108.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -7.1% | +10.8% | +32.0% | +48.8% | +119.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MARA and RIOT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MARA is the less volatile stock with a 3.11 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. RIOT currently trades 99.9% from its 52-week high vs BTBT's 40.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 3.37x | 3.11x | 3.87x | 3.39x | 3.87x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.55 | $23.45 | $24.14 | $23.61 | $25.52 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.25 | $6.66 | $7.68 | $7.91 | $2.95 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +40.2% | +54.2% | +99.9% | +59.2% | +81.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 69.1 | 69.6 | 74.5 | 71.5 | 67.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 18.5M | 47.6M | 18.4M | 19.0M | 24.9M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — BTBT and RIOT and CLSK each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BTBT as "Buy", MARA as "Buy", RIOT as "Buy", CLSK as "Buy", CIFR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 173.2% upside for BTBT (target: $5) vs 15.7% for RIOT (target: $28). For income investors, BTBT offers the higher dividend yield at 0.31% vs CLSK's 0.24%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $5.00 | $16.13 | $27.90 | $20.21 | $27.86 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 19 | 18 | 10 | 12 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.3% | — | — | +0.2% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | 2 | 2 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.01 | — | — | $0.03 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.0% | +0.0% | +4.1% | +1.1% |
BTBT leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). CIFR leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
BTBT vs MARA vs RIOT vs CLSK vs CIFR: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BTBT or MARA or RIOT or CLSK or CIFR 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 38. 2% for Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (MARA). Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) offers the better valuation at 9. 2x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) a "Buy" — based on 2 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 — BTBT or MARA or RIOT or CLSK or CIFR?
On trailing P/E, Bit Digital, Inc.
(BTBT) is the cheapest at 9. 2x versus CleanSpark, Inc. at 12. 5x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BTBT or MARA or RIOT or CLSK or CIFR?
Over the past 5 years, Cipher Mining Inc.
(CIFR) delivered a total return of +107. 9%, compared to -84. 6% for Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RIOT returned +787. 3% versus CLSK's -84. 3%. 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 — BTBT or MARA or RIOT or CLSK or CIFR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.
(MARA) is the lower-risk stock at 3. 11β versus Cipher Mining Inc. 's 3. 87β — meaning CIFR is approximately 25% more volatile than MARA 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 — BTBT or MARA or RIOT or CLSK or CIFR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Bit Digital, Inc.
(BTBT) is pulling ahead at 264. 6% versus 38. 2% for Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (MARA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CleanSpark, Inc. grew EPS 262. 3% 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 — BTBT or MARA or RIOT or CLSK or CIFR?
CleanSpark, Inc.
(CLSK) is the more profitable company, earning 47. 6% net margin versus -367. 2% for Cipher Mining Inc. — meaning it keeps 47. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CLSK leads at 41. 6% versus -150. 7% for CIFR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BTBT leads at 61. 9%, 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.
07Which pays a better dividend — BTBT or MARA or RIOT or CLSK or CIFR?
In this comparison, BTBT (0.
3% yield), CLSK (0. 2% yield) pay a dividend. MARA, RIOT, CIFR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is BTBT or MARA or RIOT or CLSK or CIFR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Riot Platforms, Inc.
(RIOT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+787. 3% 10Y return). CleanSpark, Inc. (CLSK) carries a higher beta of 3. 39 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (RIOT: +787. 3%, CLSK: -84. 3%), 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.
09What are the main differences between BTBT and MARA and RIOT and CLSK and CIFR?
These companies operate in different sectors (BTBT (Financial Services) and MARA (Financial Services) and RIOT (Financial Services) and CLSK (Technology) and CIFR (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
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.