Advertising Agencies
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
EDHL vs TIGR vs FUTU vs CLPS vs IBKR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
Information Technology Services
Investment - Banking & Investment Services
EDHL vs TIGR vs FUTU vs CLPS vs IBKR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Advertising Agencies | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Information Technology Services | Investment - Banking & Investment Services |
| Market Cap | $67M | $631M | $51.41B | $25M | $37.62B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3M | $392M | $13.59B | $299M | $10.23B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $379K | $118M | $7.91B | $-4M | $984M |
| Gross Margin | 58.9% | 65.0% | 82.0% | 22.8% | 89.8% |
| Operating Margin | 18.7% | 35.6% | 48.7% | -1.4% | 86.0% |
| Forward P/E | 188.1x | 6.8x | 1.5x | — | 33.8x |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $180M | $8.55B | $34M | $19M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $390K | $394M | $11.69B | $28M | $4.96B |
EDHL vs TIGR vs FUTU vs CLPS vs IBKR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Apr 25 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everbright Digital … (EDHL) | 100 | 4.3 | -95.7% |
| UP Fintech Holding … (TIGR) | 100 | 78.3 | -21.7% |
| Futu Holdings Limit… (FUTU) | 100 | 156.6 | +56.6% |
| CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) | 100 | 91.8 | -8.2% |
| Interactive Brokers… (IBKR) | 100 | 196.5 | +96.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: EDHL vs TIGR vs FUTU vs CLPS vs IBKR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
EDHL ranks third and is worth considering specifically for efficiency.
- 17.1% ROA vs CLPS's -3.2%, ROIC 28.8% vs -7.9%
TIGR is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 43.7%, EPS growth 71.4%
- 43.7% NII/revenue growth vs EDHL's -2.3%
FUTU has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 8.7% 10Y total return vs IBKR's 8.3%
- PEG 0.02 vs IBKR's 1.14
- Lower P/E (1.5x vs 33.8x), PEG 0.02 vs 1.14
- 40.1% margin vs CLPS's -1.3%
CLPS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Dividend streak 3 yrs, beta 0.19, yield 14.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.19, Low D/E 58.8%, current ratio 1.58x
- Beta 0.19, yield 14.7%, current ratio 1.58x
- Beta 0.19 vs FUTU's 2.11
IBKR is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +83.7% vs EDHL's -95.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 43.7% NII/revenue growth vs EDHL's -2.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (1.5x vs 33.8x), PEG 0.02 vs 1.14 | |
| Quality / Margins | 40.1% margin vs CLPS's -1.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.19 vs FUTU's 2.11 | |
| Dividends | 14.7% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs IBKR's 0.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +83.7% vs EDHL's -95.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 17.1% ROA vs CLPS's -3.2%, ROIC 28.8% vs -7.9% |
EDHL vs TIGR vs FUTU vs CLPS vs IBKR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
EDHL vs TIGR vs FUTU vs CLPS vs IBKR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CLPS leads in 2 of 6 categories
EDHL leads 1 • IBKR leads 1 • TIGR leads 0 • FUTU leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — FUTU and IBKR each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FUTU is the larger business by revenue, generating $13.6B annually — 4920.8x EDHL's $3M. FUTU is the more profitable business, keeping 40.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CLPS's -1.3%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3M | $392M | $13.6B | $299M | $10.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | — | $225M | $10.0B | -$1M | $8.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | — | $118M | $7.9B | -$4M | $984M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | — | $673M | $0 | $0 | $15.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +58.9% | +65.0% | +82.0% | +22.8% | +89.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +18.7% | +35.6% | +48.7% | -1.4% | +86.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +13.7% | +15.5% | +40.1% | -1.3% | +9.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -13.3% | +2.1% | +2.3% | -2.3% | +153.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | +15.3% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +12.4% | +112.0% | +75.8% | +26.0% |
Valuation Metrics
CLPS leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.9x trailing earnings, TIGR trades at a 90% valuation discount to EDHL's 188.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FUTU offers better value at 0.30x vs IBKR's 1.28x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $67M | $631M | $51.4B | $25M | $37.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $67M | $416M | $51.0B | $31M | $32.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 188.11x | 17.94x | 29.11x | -3.46x | 38.03x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 6.82x | 1.52x | — | 33.82x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.30x | — | 1.28x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 110.91x | 2.82x | 58.74x | — | 3.67x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 24.35x | 1.61x | 29.61x | 0.15x | 3.68x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 34.24x | 1.65x | 5.66x | 0.43x | 1.85x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 0.76x | 13.05x | — | 2.39x |
Profitability & Efficiency
EDHL leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FUTU delivers a 26.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $26 in annual profit, vs $-6 for CLPS. IBKR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CLPS's 0.59x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TIGR scores 6/9 vs CLPS's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +22.1% | +17.6% | +26.4% | -6.1% | +5.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +17.1% | +1.6% | +4.6% | -3.2% | +0.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +28.8% | +13.8% | +14.8% | -7.9% | +24.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +29.3% | +18.7% | +25.1% | -9.8% | +22.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.27x | 0.31x | 0.59x | 0.00x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$389,651 | -$214M | -$3.1B | $6M | -$4.9B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $389,651 | $394M | $11.7B | $28M | $5.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $180M | $8.6B | $34M | $19M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 3.26x | — | — | 2.13x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IBKR leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IBKR five years ago would be worth $50,230 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $400 for EDHL. Over the past 12 months, IBKR leads with a +83.7% total return vs EDHL's -95.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IBKR at 63.3% vs EDHL's -65.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -56.9% | -38.1% | -17.5% | -10.9% | +25.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -95.8% | -30.8% | +42.2% | -9.4% | +83.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.0% | +122.8% | +261.5% | +0.0% | +335.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.0% | -58.4% | +24.5% | -69.2% | +402.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.0% | -39.7% | +873.5% | -78.6% | +831.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -65.8% | +30.6% | +53.5% | +0.0% | +63.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CLPS and IBKR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CLPS is the less volatile stock with a 0.19 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FUTU's 2.11 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IBKR currently trades 96.6% from its 52-week high vs EDHL's 2.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.72x | 2.06x | 2.11x | 0.19x | 1.93x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $110.08 | $13.55 | $202.53 | $1.88 | $87.37 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.24 | $5.95 | $100.50 | $0.80 | $45.69 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +2.4% | +47.7% | +71.4% | +47.9% | +96.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.3 | 42.6 | 41.7 | 46.8 | 64.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 158K | 2.4M | 1.4M | 15K | 4.5M |
Analyst Outlook
CLPS leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TIGR as "Sell", FUTU as "Buy", IBKR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 53.5% upside for FUTU (target: $222) vs -26.8% for TIGR (target: $5). For income investors, CLPS offers the higher dividend yield at 14.69% vs IBKR's 0.35%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Sell | Buy | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $4.73 | $222.00 | — | $87.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 4 | 12 | — | 19 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +14.7% | +0.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $0.13 | $0.30 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% |
CLPS leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook). EDHL leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
EDHL vs TIGR vs FUTU vs CLPS vs IBKR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is EDHL or TIGR or FUTU or CLPS or IBKR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, UP Fintech Holding Ltd.
Sponsored ADR Class A (TIGR) is the stronger pick with 43. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 3% for Everbright Digital Holding Limited Ordinary Shares (EDHL). UP Fintech Holding Ltd. Sponsored ADR Class A (TIGR) offers the better valuation at 17. 9x trailing P/E (6. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Futu Holdings Limited (FUTU) a "Buy" — based on 12 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 — EDHL or TIGR or FUTU or CLPS or IBKR?
On trailing P/E, UP Fintech Holding Ltd.
Sponsored ADR Class A (TIGR) is the cheapest at 17. 9x versus Everbright Digital Holding Limited Ordinary Shares at 188. 1x. On forward P/E, Futu Holdings Limited is actually cheaper at 1. 5x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Futu Holdings Limited wins at 0. 02x versus Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. 's 1. 14x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — EDHL or TIGR or FUTU or CLPS or IBKR?
Over the past 5 years, Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.
(IBKR) delivered a total return of +402. 3%, compared to -96. 0% for Everbright Digital Holding Limited Ordinary Shares (EDHL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FUTU returned +873. 5% versus EDHL's -96. 0%. 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 — EDHL or TIGR or FUTU or CLPS or IBKR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
19β versus Futu Holdings Limited's 2. 11β — meaning FUTU is approximately 984% more volatile than CLPS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (IBKR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 59% for CLPS Incorporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — EDHL or TIGR or FUTU or CLPS or IBKR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), UP Fintech Holding Ltd.
Sponsored ADR Class A (TIGR) is pulling ahead at 43. 7% versus -2. 3% for Everbright Digital Holding Limited Ordinary Shares (EDHL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: UP Fintech Holding Ltd. Sponsored ADR Class A grew EPS 71. 4% year-over-year, compared to -181. 4% for CLPS Incorporation. 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 — EDHL or TIGR or FUTU or CLPS or IBKR?
Futu Holdings Limited (FUTU) is the more profitable company, earning 40.
1% net margin versus -4. 3% for CLPS Incorporation — meaning it keeps 40. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IBKR leads at 86. 0% versus -4. 0% for CLPS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IBKR leads at 89. 8%, 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 EDHL or TIGR or FUTU or CLPS or IBKR more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Futu Holdings Limited (FUTU) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 02x versus Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. 's 1. 14x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Futu Holdings Limited (FUTU) trades at 1. 5x forward P/E versus 33. 8x for Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. — 32. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FUTU: 53. 5% to $222. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — EDHL or TIGR or FUTU or CLPS or IBKR?
In this comparison, CLPS (14.
7% yield), IBKR (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. EDHL, TIGR, FUTU do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is EDHL or TIGR or FUTU or CLPS or IBKR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
19), 14. 7% yield). UP Fintech Holding Ltd. Sponsored ADR Class A (TIGR) carries a higher beta of 2. 06 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CLPS: -78. 6%, TIGR: -39. 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 EDHL and TIGR and FUTU and CLPS and IBKR?
These companies operate in different sectors (EDHL (Communication Services) and TIGR (Financial Services) and FUTU (Financial Services) and CLPS (Technology) and IBKR (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: EDHL is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TIGR is a small-cap high-growth stock; FUTU is a mid-cap high-growth stock; CLPS is a small-cap high-growth stock; IBKR is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. CLPS pays a dividend while EDHL, TIGR, FUTU, IBKR 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.