Financial - Credit Services
Compare Stocks
3 / 10Stock Comparison
EZPW vs FCFS vs CASH
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Credit Services
Banks - Regional
EZPW vs FCFS vs CASH — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Credit Services | Financial - Credit Services | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $1.93B | $9.93B | $1.91B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.27B | $3.66B | $685M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $123M | $354M | $191M |
| Gross Margin | 58.5% | 51.7% | 90.0% |
| Operating Margin | 11.7% | 15.4% | 32.6% |
| Forward P/E | 18.4x | 20.9x | 10.1x |
| Total Debt | $764M | $2.82B | $42M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $470M | $125M | $121M |
EZPW vs FCFS vs CASH — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| EZCORP, Inc. (EZPW) | 100 | 637.2 | +537.2% |
| FirstCash Holdings,… (FCFS) | 100 | 322.3 | +222.3% |
| Pathward Financial,… (CASH) | 100 | 483.2 | +383.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: EZPW vs FCFS vs CASH
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
EZPW is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 9.7%, EPS growth 29.1%
- 5.9% 10Y total return vs CASH's 451.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.82, Low D/E 74.5%, current ratio 5.61x
FCFS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 10 yrs, beta 0.31, yield 0.7%
- Beta 0.31, yield 0.7%, current ratio 4.55x
- Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs CASH's 0.6% (lower = leaner)
CASH is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.46 vs FCFS's 0.88
- Lower P/E (10.1x vs 20.9x), PEG 0.46 vs 0.88
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 9.7% NII/revenue growth vs CASH's 2.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.1x vs 20.9x), PEG 0.46 vs 0.88 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs CASH's 0.6% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.31 vs CASH's 0.87 | |
| Dividends | 0.7% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs CASH's 0.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +124.3% vs CASH's +7.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs CASH's 0.6% |
EZPW vs FCFS vs CASH — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
EZPW vs FCFS vs CASH — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CASH leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FCFS is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.7B annually — 5.3x CASH's $685M. CASH is the more profitable business, keeping 27.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to EZPW's 8.6%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.3B | $3.7B | $685M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $201M | $950M | $288M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $123M | $354M | $191M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $123M | $553M | $422M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +58.5% | +51.7% | +90.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +11.7% | +15.4% | +32.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +8.6% | +9.0% | +27.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +8.7% | +12.8% | +34.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +37.5% | +29.9% | +27.6% |
Valuation Metrics
CASH leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 11.1x trailing earnings, CASH trades at a 63% valuation discount to FCFS's 30.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), CASH offers better value at 0.51x vs FCFS's 1.28x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.9B | $9.9B | $1.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.2B | $12.6B | $1.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 23.15x | 30.31x | 11.12x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 18.35x | 20.89x | 10.09x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.28x | 0.51x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.25x | 12.70x | 6.46x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.52x | 2.71x | 2.78x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.67x | 4.40x | 2.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 17.49x | 21.16x | 8.05x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CASH leads this category, winning 8 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CASH delivers a 22.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $23 in annual profit, vs $12 for EZPW. CASH carries lower financial leverage with a 0.05x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FCFS's 1.24x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CASH scores 8/9 vs EZPW's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +12.5% | +15.9% | +22.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +6.4% | +7.0% | +2.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.1% | +9.2% | +15.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +10.0% | +12.5% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.75x | 1.24x | 0.05x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $295M | $2.7B | -$78M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $470M | $125M | $121M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $764M | $2.8B | $42M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 6.63x | 4.72x | 22.12x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
EZPW leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in EZPW five years ago would be worth $50,663 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $17,636 for CASH. Over the past 12 months, EZPW leads with a +124.3% total return vs CASH's +7.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors EZPW at 54.0% vs CASH's 26.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +63.9% | +43.7% | +21.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +124.3% | +69.7% | +7.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +264.9% | +121.2% | +103.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +406.6% | +206.7% | +76.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +590.8% | +397.9% | +451.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +54.0% | +30.3% | +26.7% |
Risk & Volatility
FCFS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FCFS is the less volatile stock with a 0.31 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CASH's 0.87 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FCFS currently trades 97.5% from its 52-week high vs CASH's 86.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.82x | 0.31x | 0.87x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $37.13 | $230.72 | $101.26 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $12.85 | $119.21 | $65.87 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +88.6% | +97.5% | +86.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 79.8 | 73.5 | 40.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 733K | 344K | 217K |
Analyst Outlook
FCFS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: EZPW as "Buy", FCFS as "Hold", CASH as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 12.1% upside for FCFS (target: $252) vs -17.1% for EZPW (target: $27). For income investors, FCFS offers the higher dividend yield at 0.71% vs CASH's 0.23%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $27.25 | $252.00 | $82.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 19 | 9 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.7% | +0.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 10 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.59 | $0.20 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.4% | +1.2% | +8.6% |
CASH leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). FCFS leads in 2 (Risk & Volatility, Analyst Outlook).
EZPW vs FCFS vs CASH: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is EZPW or FCFS or CASH a better buy right now?
For growth investors, EZCORP, Inc.
(EZPW) is the stronger pick with 9. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 4% for Pathward Financial, Inc. (CASH). Pathward Financial, Inc. (CASH) offers the better valuation at 11. 1x trailing P/E (10. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate EZCORP, Inc. (EZPW) 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 — EZPW or FCFS or CASH?
On trailing P/E, Pathward Financial, Inc.
(CASH) is the cheapest at 11. 1x versus FirstCash Holdings, Inc at 30. 3x. On forward P/E, Pathward Financial, Inc. is actually cheaper at 10. 1x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Pathward Financial, Inc. wins at 0. 46x versus FirstCash Holdings, Inc's 0. 88x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — EZPW or FCFS or CASH?
Over the past 5 years, EZCORP, Inc.
(EZPW) delivered a total return of +406. 6%, compared to +76. 4% for Pathward Financial, Inc. (CASH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: EZPW returned +590. 8% versus FCFS's +397. 9%. 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 — EZPW or FCFS or CASH?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
31β versus Pathward Financial, Inc. 's 0. 87β — meaning CASH is approximately 182% more volatile than FCFS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Pathward Financial, Inc. (CASH) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 124% for FirstCash Holdings, Inc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — EZPW or FCFS or CASH?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), EZCORP, Inc.
(EZPW) is pulling ahead at 9. 7% versus 2. 4% for Pathward Financial, Inc. (CASH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: FirstCash Holdings, Inc grew EPS 29. 5% year-over-year, compared to 9. 3% for Pathward Financial, Inc.. 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 — EZPW or FCFS or CASH?
Pathward Financial, Inc.
(CASH) is the more profitable company, earning 27. 1% net margin versus 8. 6% for EZCORP, Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CASH leads at 32. 6% versus 11. 7% for EZPW. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CASH leads at 90. 0%, 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 EZPW or FCFS or CASH 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, Pathward Financial, Inc. (CASH) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 46x versus FirstCash Holdings, Inc's 0. 88x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Pathward Financial, Inc. (CASH) trades at 10. 1x forward P/E versus 20. 9x for FirstCash Holdings, Inc — 10. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FCFS: 12. 1% to $252. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — EZPW or FCFS or CASH?
In this comparison, FCFS (0.
7% yield), CASH (0. 2% yield) pay a dividend. EZPW does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is EZPW or FCFS or CASH better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
31), 0. 7% yield, +397. 9% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (FCFS: +397. 9%, CASH: +451. 0%), 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 EZPW and FCFS and CASH?
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: EZPW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FCFS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CASH is a small-cap deep-value stock. FCFS pays a dividend while EZPW, CASH 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.
Compare CASH vs GDOT
GDOT is one of the most direct listed alternatives to CASH.
Compare EZPW vs WRLD
WRLD overlaps with EZPW in an adjacent operating segment worth comparing.
Expand With NAVI + WRLD
NAVI and WRLD are the strongest missing peers across the current compare set.