Software - Application
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
DBD vs FISV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Information Technology Services
DBD vs FISV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Software - Application | Information Technology Services |
| Market Cap | $2.75B | $30.38B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.86B | $21.09B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $110M | $3.20B |
| Gross Margin | 26.0% | 60.8% |
| Operating Margin | 8.0% | 24.4% |
| Forward P/E | 14.4x | 7.0x |
| Total Debt | $1.17B | $29.12B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $387M | $798M |
DBD vs FISV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Aug 23 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diebold Nixdorf, In… (DBD) | 100 | 442.8 | +342.8% |
| Fiserv, Inc. (FISV) | 100 | 46.8 | -53.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: DBD vs FISV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
DBD is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 289.1% 10Y total return vs FISV's 9.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.21, current ratio 1.30x
- +79.3% vs FISV's -68.8%
FISV carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- beta 0.94
- Rev growth 3.6%, EPS growth 17.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 6.1%
- Beta 0.94, current ratio 1.03x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 3.6% revenue growth vs DBD's 1.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.0x vs 14.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 15.2% margin vs DBD's 2.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.94 vs DBD's 1.21 | |
| Dividends | Tie | Neither stock pays a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +79.3% vs FISV's -68.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 4.0% ROA vs DBD's 2.9%, ROIC 8.1% vs 14.0% |
DBD vs FISV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
DBD vs FISV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FISV leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FISV is the larger business by revenue, generating $21.1B annually — 5.5x DBD's $3.9B. FISV is the more profitable business, keeping 15.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to DBD's 2.8%. On growth, DBD holds the edge at +6.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3.9B | $21.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $400M | $7.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $110M | $3.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $266M | $4.0B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +26.0% | +60.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +8.0% | +24.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.8% | +15.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +6.9% | +19.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.0% | -2.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +163.6% | -29.1% |
Valuation Metrics
FISV leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.0x trailing earnings, FISV trades at a 71% valuation discount to DBD's 31.1x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, FISV's 6.6x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than DBD's 7.6x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.7B | $30.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.5B | $58.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 31.05x | 8.96x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 14.37x | 7.01x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.25x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.64x | 6.63x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.72x | 1.43x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.66x | 1.21x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 10.43x | 7.00x |
Profitability & Efficiency
DBD leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FISV delivers a 12.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $12 in annual profit, vs $10 for DBD. DBD carries lower financial leverage with a 1.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FISV's 1.13x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), DBD scores 6/9 vs FISV's 5/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +10.1% | +12.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.9% | +4.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +14.0% | +8.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +14.1% | +10.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.06x | 1.13x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $787M | $28.3B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $387M | $798M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.2B | $29.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 6.68x | 6.39x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
DBD leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in DBD five years ago would be worth $38,342 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,829 for FISV. Over the past 12 months, DBD leads with a +79.3% total return vs FISV's -68.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors DBD at 56.5% vs FISV's -22.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +23.3% | -13.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +79.3% | -68.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +283.4% | -52.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +283.4% | -51.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +289.1% | +9.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +56.5% | -22.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — DBD and FISV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FISV is the less volatile stock with a 0.94 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than DBD's 1.21 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. DBD currently trades 88.6% from its 52-week high vs FISV's 29.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.21x | 0.94x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $89.05 | $191.91 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $43.61 | $52.91 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +88.6% | +29.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 47.4 | 36.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 460K | 5.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates DBD as "Buy" and FISV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 31.4% upside for FISV (target: $75) vs 26.8% for DBD (target: $100).
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $100.00 | $74.64 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 60 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +4.8% | +19.4% |
FISV leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). DBD leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). 1 tied.
DBD vs FISV: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is DBD or FISV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Fiserv, Inc.
(FISV) is the stronger pick with 3. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 5% for Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (DBD). Fiserv, Inc. (FISV) offers the better valuation at 9. 0x trailing P/E (7. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (DBD) a "Buy" — based on 13 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 — DBD or FISV?
On trailing P/E, Fiserv, Inc.
(FISV) is the cheapest at 9. 0x versus Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated at 31. 1x. On forward P/E, Fiserv, Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 0x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — DBD or FISV?
Over the past 5 years, Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (DBD) delivered a total return of +283.
4%, compared to -51. 7% for Fiserv, Inc. (FISV). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: DBD returned +289. 1% versus FISV's +9. 7%. 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 — DBD or FISV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Fiserv, Inc.
(FISV) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 94β versus Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated's 1. 21β — meaning DBD is approximately 29% more volatile than FISV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (DBD) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 106% versus 113% for Fiserv, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — DBD or FISV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Fiserv, Inc.
(FISV) is pulling ahead at 3. 6% versus 1. 5% for Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (DBD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated grew EPS 677. 3% year-over-year, compared to 17. 8% for Fiserv, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FISV leads at 6. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — DBD or FISV?
Fiserv, Inc.
(FISV) is the more profitable company, earning 16. 4% net margin versus 2. 5% for Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated — meaning it keeps 16. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FISV leads at 26. 9% versus 8. 8% for DBD. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FISV leads at 59. 4%, 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 DBD or FISV more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Fiserv, Inc.
(FISV) trades at 7. 0x forward P/E versus 14. 4x for Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated — 7. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FISV: 31. 4% to $74. 64.
08Which pays a better dividend — DBD or FISV?
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 DBD or FISV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Fiserv, Inc.
(FISV) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 94)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (FISV: +9. 7%, DBD: +289. 1%), 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 DBD and FISV?
Both stocks operate in the Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: DBD is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FISV is a mid-cap deep-value 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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.