CPHC vs FLUT

For growth investors, Flutter Entertainment plc (FLUT) is the stronger pick with 16.

6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 2% for Canterbury Park Holding Corporation (CPHC). Analysts rate Flutter Entertainment plc (FLUT) a "Buy" — based on 24 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.

Over the past 5 years, Canterbury Park Holding Corporation (CPHC) delivered a total return of +22.

4%, compared to -51. 1% for Flutter Entertainment plc (FLUT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CPHC returned +73. 4% versus FLUT's -24. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Canterbury Park Holding Corporation (CPHC) is the lower-risk stock at -0.

03β versus Flutter Entertainment plc's 1. 23β — meaning FLUT is approximately -4003% more volatile than CPHC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Canterbury Park Holding Corporation (CPHC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 138% for Flutter Entertainment plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Flutter Entertainment plc (FLUT) is pulling ahead at 16.

6% versus -3. 2% for Canterbury Park Holding Corporation (CPHC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Canterbury Park Holding Corporation grew EPS -123. 8% year-over-year, compared to -820. 8% for Flutter Entertainment plc. Over a 3-year CAGR, FLUT leads at 20. 1% 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.

Canterbury Park Holding Corporation (CPHC) is the more profitable company, earning -0.

9% net margin versus -1. 9% for Flutter Entertainment plc — meaning it keeps -0. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FLUT leads at 6. 3% versus 4. 2% for CPHC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FLUT leads at 45. 2%, 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.

In this comparison, CPHC (1.

8% yield) pays a dividend. FLUT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Canterbury Park Holding Corporation (CPHC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.

03), 1. 8% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CPHC: +73. 4%, FLUT: -24. 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.

Both stocks operate in the Consumer Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: CPHC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FLUT is a mid-cap high-growth stock. CPHC pays a dividend while FLUT does 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.