Financial - Mortgages
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CNF vs UWMC vs RKT vs PFSI vs TREE
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Mortgages
Financial - Mortgages
Financial - Mortgages
Financial - Conglomerates
CNF vs UWMC vs RKT vs PFSI vs TREE — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Mortgages | Financial - Mortgages | Financial - Mortgages | Financial - Mortgages | Financial - Conglomerates |
| Market Cap | $1M | $526M | $39.90B | $4.62B | $552M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $626M | $3.16B | $6.88B | $4.36B | $1.12B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-51M | $27M | $-68M | $507M | $181M |
| Gross Margin | 87.0% | 85.6% | 91.6% | 91.4% | 94.3% |
| Operating Margin | -11.2% | 58.0% | 8.7% | 34.6% | 7.3% |
| Forward P/E | 4.5x | 8.0x | 19.3x | 7.2x | 7.1x |
| Total Debt | $4.22B | $14.44B | $0.00 | $23.06B | $435M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $338M | $503M | $2.70B | $302M | $81M |
CNF vs UWMC vs RKT vs PFSI vs TREE — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Aug 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| CNFinance Holdings … (CNF) | 100 | 10.3 | -89.7% |
| UWM Holdings Corpor… (UWMC) | 100 | 32.1 | -67.9% |
| Rocket Companies, I… (RKT) | 100 | 50.5 | -49.5% |
| PennyMac Financial … (PFSI) | 100 | 168.2 | +68.2% |
| LendingTree, Inc. (TREE) | 100 | 12.9 | -87.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CNF vs UWMC vs RKT vs PFSI vs TREE
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CNF is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and bank quality is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.09, current ratio 0.46x
- NIM 0.6% vs UWMC's 0.0%
- Lower P/E (4.5x vs 7.1x)
- Beta 0.09 vs RKT's 1.77
UWMC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 1.50, yield 100.0%
- Beta 1.50, yield 100.0%, current ratio 0.67x
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CNF's 1.0% (lower = leaner)
- 100.0% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs PFSI's 1.3%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
RKT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +21.6% vs CNF's -56.0%
PFSI is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 173.8%, EPS growth 59.2%
- 6.0% 10Y total return vs RKT's -20.7%
- 173.8% NII/revenue growth vs CNF's -60.9%
Among these 5 stocks, TREE doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 173.8% NII/revenue growth vs CNF's -60.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.5x vs 7.1x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CNF's 1.0% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.09 vs RKT's 1.77 | |
| Dividends | 100.0% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs PFSI's 1.3%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +21.6% vs CNF's -56.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs CNF's 1.0% |
CNF vs UWMC vs RKT vs PFSI vs TREE — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
CNF vs UWMC vs RKT vs PFSI vs TREE — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
TREE leads in 2 of 6 categories
CNF leads 1 • UWMC leads 0 • RKT leads 0 • PFSI leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TREE leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RKT is the larger business by revenue, generating $6.9B annually — 11.0x CNF's $626M. TREE is the more profitable business, keeping 13.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CNF's -73.1%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $626M | $3.2B | $6.9B | $4.4B | $1.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $198M | $695M | $639M | $1.0B | $120M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$51M | $27M | -$68M | $507M | $181M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $0 | -$2.7B | -$4.1B | -$3.8B | $73M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +87.0% | +85.6% | +91.6% | +91.4% | +94.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -11.2% | +58.0% | +8.7% | +34.6% | +7.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -73.1% | +0.9% | -1.0% | +11.5% | +13.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +12.6% | -86.1% | -58.4% | -32.4% | +5.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -8.5% | — | -89.6% | +7.7% | +2.3% |
Valuation Metrics
CNF leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 3.7x trailing earnings, TREE trades at a 87% valuation discount to UWMC's 28.2x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, UWMC's 7.7x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than RKT's 41.8x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1M | $526M | $39.9B | $4.6B | $552M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $571M | $14.5B | $37.2B | $27.4B | $906M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.02x | 28.17x | -282.60x | 9.53x | 3.69x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 4.49x | 8.01x | 19.30x | 7.17x | 7.11x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 7.68x | 41.81x | 18.11x | 8.73x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.01x | 0.17x | 5.80x | 1.06x | 0.49x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.00x | 0.45x | 0.82x | 1.11x | 1.95x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 0.09x | — | — | — | 9.09x |
Profitability & Efficiency
TREE leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
TREE delivers a 86.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $86 in annual profit, vs $-1 for CNF. CNF carries lower financial leverage with a 1.18x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to UWMC's 9.06x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TREE scores 6/9 vs RKT's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -1.2% | +1.7% | -0.6% | +12.0% | +86.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -0.4% | +0.2% | -0.2% | +1.8% | +21.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -0.6% | +8.9% | +2.0% | +4.4% | +9.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.9% | +19.0% | +1.6% | +10.4% | +13.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.18x | 9.06x | — | 5.35x | 1.52x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $3.9B | $13.9B | -$2.7B | $22.8B | $354M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $338M | $503M | $2.7B | $302M | $81M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4.2B | $14.4B | $0 | $23.1B | $435M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.14x | 0.75x | 0.43x | 1.35x | 4.45x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — PFSI and TREE 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 $915 for CNF. Over the past 12 months, RKT leads with a +21.6% total return vs CNF's -56.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TREE at 28.5% vs CNF's -50.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -46.8% | -21.1% | -28.9% | -32.4% | -22.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -56.0% | -7.4% | +21.6% | -8.0% | +6.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -88.0% | -21.7% | +77.3% | +59.2% | +112.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -90.9% | -22.7% | -11.9% | +63.7% | -78.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.8% | -41.1% | -20.7% | +603.4% | -45.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -50.6% | -7.8% | +21.0% | +16.8% | +28.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CNF and RKT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CNF is the less volatile stock with a 0.09 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. RKT currently trades 58.0% from its 52-week high vs CNF's 36.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.09x | 1.50x | 1.77x | 0.93x | 1.55x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $8.80 | $7.14 | $24.36 | $160.36 | $77.35 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $2.36 | $3.27 | $11.08 | $82.67 | $32.65 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +36.3% | +47.3% | +58.0% | +55.3% | +51.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 44.5 | 42.1 | 45.8 | 40.4 | 39.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 5K | 15.7M | 25.0M | 604K | 326K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — UWMC and PFSI each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: UWMC as "Hold", RKT as "Hold", PFSI as "Buy", TREE as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 76.9% upside for UWMC (target: $6) vs 53.1% for RKT (target: $22). For income investors, UWMC offers the higher dividend yield at 100.00% vs PFSI's 1.31%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $5.98 | $21.63 | $143.00 | $69.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 13 | 25 | 20 | 23 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +100.0% | — | +1.3% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $3.39 | — | $1.16 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +23.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.1% | 0.0% |
TREE leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). CNF leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
CNF vs UWMC vs RKT vs PFSI vs TREE: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CNF or UWMC or RKT or PFSI or TREE 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 -60. 9% for CNFinance Holdings Limited (CNF). LendingTree, Inc. (TREE) offers the better valuation at 3. 7x trailing P/E (7. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate PennyMac Financial Services, Inc. (PFSI) a "Buy" — based on 20 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 — CNF or UWMC or RKT or PFSI or TREE?
On trailing P/E, LendingTree, Inc.
(TREE) is the cheapest at 3. 7x versus UWM Holdings Corporation at 28. 2x. On forward P/E, CNFinance Holdings Limited is actually cheaper at 4. 5x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CNF or UWMC or RKT or PFSI or TREE?
Over the past 5 years, PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.
(PFSI) delivered a total return of +63. 7%, compared to -90. 9% for CNFinance Holdings Limited (CNF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PFSI returned +603. 4% versus CNF's -95. 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 — CNF or UWMC or RKT or PFSI or TREE?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CNFinance Holdings Limited (CNF) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
09β versus Rocket Companies, Inc. 's 1. 77β — meaning RKT is approximately 1840% more volatile than CNF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CNFinance Holdings Limited (CNF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 118% versus 9% for UWM Holdings Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CNF or UWMC or RKT or PFSI or TREE?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.
(PFSI) is pulling ahead at 173. 8% versus -60. 9% for CNFinance Holdings Limited (CNF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: LendingTree, Inc. grew EPS 443. 3% year-over-year, compared to -122. 3% for CNFinance Holdings Limited. 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 — CNF or UWMC or RKT or PFSI or TREE?
LendingTree, Inc.
(TREE) is the more profitable company, earning 13. 5% net margin versus -73. 1% for CNFinance Holdings Limited — meaning it keeps 13. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: UWMC leads at 58. 0% versus -11. 2% for CNF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TREE leads at 94. 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 CNF or UWMC or RKT or PFSI or TREE more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, CNFinance Holdings Limited (CNF) trades at 4.
5x forward P/E versus 19. 3x for Rocket Companies, Inc. — 14. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for UWMC: 76. 9% to $5. 98.
08Which pays a better dividend — CNF or UWMC or RKT or PFSI or TREE?
In this comparison, UWMC (100.
0% yield), PFSI (1. 3% yield) pay a dividend. CNF, RKT, TREE do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is CNF or UWMC or RKT or PFSI or TREE better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.
(PFSI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 93), 1. 3% yield, +603. 4% 10Y return). 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 (PFSI: +603. 4%, 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 CNF and UWMC and RKT and PFSI and TREE?
Both stocks operate in the Financial Services sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: CNF is a small-cap quality compounder stock; UWMC is a small-cap high-growth stock; RKT is a mid-cap high-growth stock; PFSI is a small-cap high-growth stock; TREE is a small-cap high-growth stock. UWMC, PFSI pay a dividend while CNF, RKT, TREE 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.