Software - Application
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
CCGWW vs ROOT vs LMND vs HIPO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Property & Casualty
Insurance - Property & Casualty
Insurance - Specialty
CCGWW vs ROOT vs LMND vs HIPO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Software - Application | Insurance - Property & Casualty | Insurance - Property & Casualty | Insurance - Specialty |
| Market Cap | $9M | $798M | $4.18B | $714M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.47B | $1.56B | $821M | $480M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-61M | $56M | $-139M | $113M |
| Gross Margin | 4.6% | 17.9% | 47.6% | 40.5% |
| Operating Margin | -1.9% | 4.1% | -16.3% | 24.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | 29.0x | — | 114.3x |
| Total Debt | $35M | $201M | $182M | $52M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $117M | $690M | $385M | $250M |
CCGWW vs ROOT vs LMND vs HIPO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 23 | Feb 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cheche Group Inc. W… (CCGWW) | 100 | 10.5 | -89.5% |
| Root, Inc. (ROOT) | 100 | 653.3 | +553.3% |
| Lemonade, Inc. (LMND) | 100 | 746.4 | +646.4% |
| Hippo Holdings Inc. (HIPO) | 100 | 373.9 | +273.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CCGWW vs ROOT vs LMND vs HIPO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CCGWW is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- beta 1.38
- Lower volatility, beta 1.38, Low D/E 9.9%, current ratio 1.34x
- Beta 1.38, current ratio 1.34x
- Beta 1.38 vs LMND's 2.75, lower leverage
ROOT is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 29.0%, EPS growth 22.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 69.6%
- Better valuation composite
LMND has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in long-term compounding.
- -21.6% 10Y total return vs ROOT's -88.3%
- 40.2% revenue growth vs CCGWW's 5.2%
- +78.2% vs ROOT's -59.3%
HIPO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- 23.4% margin vs LMND's -16.9%
- 6.0% ROA vs LMND's -7.4%, ROIC 22.8% vs -36.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 40.2% revenue growth vs CCGWW's 5.2% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 23.4% margin vs LMND's -16.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.38 vs LMND's 2.75, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +78.2% vs ROOT's -59.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.0% ROA vs LMND's -7.4%, ROIC 22.8% vs -36.8% |
CCGWW vs ROOT vs LMND vs HIPO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
CCGWW vs ROOT vs LMND vs HIPO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
HIPO leads in 2 of 6 categories
ROOT leads 1 • LMND leads 1 • CCGWW leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HIPO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CCGWW is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.5B annually — 7.2x HIPO's $480M. HIPO is the more profitable business, keeping 23.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to LMND's -16.9%. On growth, LMND holds the edge at +55.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3.5B | $1.6B | $821M | $480M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | — | $73M | -$121M | $116M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | — | $56M | -$139M | $113M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | — | $181M | $20M | $50M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +4.6% | +17.9% | +47.6% | +40.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -1.9% | +4.1% | -16.3% | +24.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -1.8% | +3.6% | -16.9% | +23.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -3.3% | +11.6% | +2.4% | +10.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +12.6% | +55.0% | +10.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +95.3% | +45.3% | +114.1% |
Valuation Metrics
ROOT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.4x trailing earnings, HIPO trades at a 51% valuation discount to ROOT's 25.4x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, ROOT's 5.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than HIPO's 8.2x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $9M | $798M | $4.2B | $714M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$3M | $309M | $4.0B | $517M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | — | 25.41x | -23.67x | 12.36x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 29.04x | — | 114.33x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 5.88x | — | 8.16x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.02x | 0.53x | 5.67x | 1.52x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.18x | 2.47x | 7.33x | 1.64x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 4.15x | — | 78.49x |
Profitability & Efficiency
HIPO leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HIPO delivers a 27.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $27 in annual profit, vs $-27 for LMND. CCGWW carries lower financial leverage with a 0.10x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ROOT's 0.51x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ROOT scores 6/9 vs LMND's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -16.7% | +15.4% | -26.5% | +27.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -5.6% | +3.7% | -7.4% | +6.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -22.8% | — | -36.8% | +22.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -16.6% | +3.8% | -22.7% | +6.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.10x | 0.51x | 0.34x | 0.12x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$82M | -$489M | -$203M | -$198M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $117M | $690M | $385M | $250M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $35M | $201M | $182M | $52M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -79.41x | 1.86x | — | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
LMND leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in LMND five years ago would be worth $6,880 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $875 for CCGWW. Over the past 12 months, LMND leads with a +78.2% total return vs ROOT's -59.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ROOT at 117.4% vs CCGWW's -55.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -19.2% | -19.7% | -28.3% | -8.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -19.8% | -59.3% | +78.2% | +12.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.3% | +927.3% | +234.7% | +48.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.3% | -69.6% | -31.2% | -88.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.3% | -88.3% | -21.6% | -90.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -55.6% | +117.4% | +49.6% | +14.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CCGWW and HIPO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CCGWW is the less volatile stock with a 1.38 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LMND's 2.75 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. HIPO currently trades 70.4% from its 52-week high vs ROOT's 34.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.38x | 2.30x | 2.75x | 1.40x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $0.05 | $162.99 | $99.90 | $38.98 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.02 | $40.91 | $28.71 | $19.92 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +42.0% | +34.9% | +54.5% | +70.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 39.1 | 56.6 | 36.3 | 48.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 0 | 330K | 1.9M | 110K |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ROOT as "Hold", LMND as "Buy", HIPO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 33.5% upside for LMND (target: $73) vs 3.4% for HIPO (target: $28).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $75.00 | $72.67 | $28.38 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 14 | 15 | 6 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +2.0% |
HIPO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). ROOT leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
CCGWW vs ROOT vs LMND vs HIPO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CCGWW or ROOT or LMND or HIPO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Lemonade, Inc.
(LMND) is the stronger pick with 40. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 5. 2% for Cheche Group Inc. Warrant (CCGWW). Hippo Holdings Inc. (HIPO) offers the better valuation at 12. 4x trailing P/E (114. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Lemonade, Inc. (LMND) 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 — CCGWW or ROOT or LMND or HIPO?
On trailing P/E, Hippo Holdings Inc.
(HIPO) is the cheapest at 12. 4x versus Root, Inc. at 25. 4x. On forward P/E, Root, Inc. is actually cheaper at 29. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CCGWW or ROOT or LMND or HIPO?
Over the past 5 years, Lemonade, Inc.
(LMND) delivered a total return of -31. 2%, compared to -91. 3% for Cheche Group Inc. Warrant (CCGWW). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LMND returned -21. 6% versus CCGWW's -91. 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 — CCGWW or ROOT or LMND or HIPO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Cheche Group Inc.
Warrant (CCGWW) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 38β versus Lemonade, Inc. 's 2. 75β — meaning LMND is approximately 99% more volatile than CCGWW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Cheche Group Inc. Warrant (CCGWW) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 10% versus 51% for Root, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CCGWW or ROOT or LMND or HIPO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Lemonade, Inc.
(LMND) is pulling ahead at 40. 2% versus 5. 2% for Cheche Group Inc. Warrant (CCGWW). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Hippo Holdings Inc. grew EPS 235. 4% year-over-year, compared to 19. 3% for Lemonade, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ROOT leads at 69. 6% 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 — CCGWW or ROOT or LMND or HIPO?
Hippo Holdings Inc.
(HIPO) is the more profitable company, earning 12. 3% net margin versus -22. 4% for Lemonade, Inc. — meaning it keeps 12. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: HIPO leads at 13. 5% versus -21. 8% for LMND. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HIPO leads at 50. 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.
07Is CCGWW or ROOT or LMND or HIPO more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Root, Inc.
(ROOT) trades at 29. 0x forward P/E versus 114. 3x for Hippo Holdings Inc. — 85. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LMND: 33. 5% to $72. 67.
08Which pays a better dividend — CCGWW or ROOT or LMND or HIPO?
None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.
All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.
09Is CCGWW or ROOT or LMND or HIPO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Cheche Group Inc.
Warrant (CCGWW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding. Root, Inc. (ROOT) carries a higher beta of 2. 30 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CCGWW: -91. 3%, ROOT: -88. 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.
10What are the main differences between CCGWW and ROOT and LMND and HIPO?
These companies operate in different sectors (CCGWW (Technology) and ROOT (Financial Services) and LMND (Financial Services) and HIPO (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: CCGWW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ROOT is a small-cap high-growth stock; LMND is a small-cap high-growth stock; HIPO is a small-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.