GDOT vs OMF

For growth investors, Green Dot Corporation (GDOT) is the stronger pick with 20.

7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 9. 1% for OneMain Holdings, Inc. (OMF). OneMain Holdings, Inc. (OMF) offers the better valuation at 8. 5x trailing P/E (7. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate OneMain Holdings, Inc. (OMF) a "Buy" — based on 31 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.

On forward P/E, OneMain Holdings, Inc.

is actually cheaper at 7. 5x.

Over the past 5 years, OneMain Holdings, Inc.

(OMF) delivered a total return of +36. 4%, compared to -71. 8% for Green Dot Corporation (GDOT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: OMF returned +189. 2% versus GDOT's -45. 7%. 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), Green Dot Corporation (GDOT) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

13β versus OneMain Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 30β — meaning OMF is approximately 15% more volatile than GDOT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Green Dot Corporation (GDOT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 7% for OneMain Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Green Dot Corporation (GDOT) is pulling ahead at 20.

7% versus 9. 1% for OneMain Holdings, Inc. (OMF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: OneMain Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 54. 7% year-over-year, compared to -258. 0% for Green Dot Corporation. 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.

OneMain Holdings, Inc.

(OMF) is the more profitable company, earning 12. 5% net margin versus -4. 8% for Green Dot Corporation — meaning it keeps 12. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: OMF leads at 16. 0% versus 2. 7% for GDOT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — OMF leads at 47. 6%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, OneMain Holdings, Inc.

(OMF) trades at 7. 5x forward P/E versus 8. 5x for Green Dot Corporation — 1. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GDOT: 27. 6% to $16. 13.

In this comparison, OMF (4.

7% yield) pays a dividend. GDOT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, OneMain Holdings, Inc.

(OMF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (4. 7% yield, +189. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (OMF: +189. 2%, GDOT: -45. 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.

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: GDOT is a small-cap high-growth stock; OMF is a small-cap deep-value stock. OMF pays a dividend while GDOT 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.