Electronic Gaming & Multimedia
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GMHS vs GLBE vs AMZN vs FOUR vs MSFT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Specialty Retail
Software - Infrastructure
Software - Infrastructure
GMHS vs GLBE vs AMZN vs FOUR vs MSFT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Electronic Gaming & Multimedia | Specialty Retail | Specialty Retail | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure |
| Market Cap | $54M | $5.04B | $2.93T | $2.95B | $3.08T |
| Revenue (TTM) | $137M | $962M | $742.78B | $3.33B | $318.27B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $7M | $68M | $90.80B | $86M | $125.22B |
| Gross Margin | 51.9% | 45.3% | 50.6% | 35.2% | 68.3% |
| Operating Margin | 4.2% | 7.4% | 11.5% | 11.3% | 46.8% |
| Forward P/E | 13.0x | 26.7x | 31.4x | 7.7x | 24.8x |
| Total Debt | $522K | $42M | $152.99B | $4.62B | $112.18B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $15M | $246M | $86.81B | $964M | $30.24B |
GMHS vs GLBE vs AMZN vs FOUR vs MSFT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gamehaus Holdings I… (GMHS) | 100 | 8.9 | -91.1% |
| Global-e Online Ltd. (GLBE) | 100 | 54.6 | -45.4% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 124.3 | +24.3% |
| Shift4 Payments, In… (FOUR) | 100 | 41.1 | -58.9% |
| Microsoft Corporati… (MSFT) | 100 | 98.5 | -1.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GMHS vs GLBE vs AMZN vs FOUR vs MSFT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, GMHS doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
GLBE ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 27.8%, EPS growth 186.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 33.0%
- PEG 0.20 vs MSFT's 1.32
- 27.8% revenue growth vs GMHS's -18.7%
AMZN is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +42.0% vs FOUR's -50.0%
FOUR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if defensive is your priority.
- Beta 1.45, yield 0.8%, current ratio 1.66x
- Lower P/E (7.7x vs 24.8x)
- 0.8% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs MSFT's 0.8%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
MSFT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 19 yrs, beta 0.85, yield 0.8%
- 7.8% 10Y total return vs AMZN's 7.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.85, Low D/E 32.7%, current ratio 1.35x
- 39.3% margin vs FOUR's 2.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 27.8% revenue growth vs GMHS's -18.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.7x vs 24.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 39.3% margin vs FOUR's 2.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.85 vs GLBE's 1.53 | |
| Dividends | 0.8% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs MSFT's 0.8%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +42.0% vs FOUR's -50.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.2% ROA vs FOUR's 1.0%, ROIC 24.9% vs 6.3% |
GMHS vs GLBE vs AMZN vs FOUR vs MSFT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
GMHS vs GLBE vs AMZN vs FOUR vs MSFT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MSFT leads in 2 of 6 categories
AMZN leads 1 • GMHS leads 0 • GLBE leads 0 • FOUR leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 5407.0x GMHS's $137M. MSFT is the more profitable business, keeping 39.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FOUR's 2.6%. On growth, GLBE holds the edge at +28.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $137M | $962M | $742.8B | $3.3B | $318.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $7M | $130M | $155.9B | $629M | $192.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $7M | $68M | $90.8B | $86M | $125.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$1M | $295M | -$2.5B | $687M | $72.9B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +51.9% | +45.3% | +50.6% | +35.2% | +68.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +4.2% | +7.4% | +11.5% | +11.3% | +46.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.2% | +7.1% | +12.2% | +2.6% | +39.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -1.0% | +30.6% | -0.3% | +20.6% | +22.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.9% | +28.0% | +16.6% | -100.0% | +18.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -38.9% | — | +74.8% | -105.0% | +23.4% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — GMHS and FOUR each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 13.0x trailing earnings, GMHS trades at a 83% valuation discount to GLBE's 76.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), GLBE offers better value at 0.58x vs MSFT's 1.62x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $54M | $5.0B | $2.93T | $3.0B | $3.08T |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $39M | $4.8B | $3.00T | $6.6B | $3.17T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 13.00x | 76.41x | 38.03x | 39.52x | 30.43x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 26.67x | 31.41x | 7.66x | 24.77x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.58x | 1.36x | — | 1.62x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.85x | 52.20x | 20.58x | 8.44x | 19.46x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.45x | 5.24x | 4.09x | 0.71x | 10.94x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.56x | 5.62x | 7.18x | 1.94x | 9.02x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 24.60x | 17.96x | 381.09x | 5.92x | 43.06x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MSFT leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MSFT delivers a 33.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $33 in annual profit, vs $4 for FOUR. GMHS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FOUR's 2.36x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FOUR scores 7/9 vs GMHS's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +16.9% | +7.3% | +23.3% | +4.4% | +33.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +12.8% | +4.7% | +11.5% | +1.0% | +19.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +14.8% | +7.7% | +14.7% | +6.3% | +24.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +10.0% | +7.7% | +15.3% | +6.3% | +29.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.02x | 0.04x | 0.37x | 2.36x | 0.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$15M | -$204M | $66.2B | $3.7B | $81.9B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $15M | $246M | $86.8B | $964M | $30.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $521,581 | $42M | $153.0B | $4.6B | $112.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 17.83x | 39.96x | 3.40x | 55.65x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AMZN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MSFT five years ago would be worth $17,377 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $885 for GMHS. Over the past 12 months, AMZN leads with a +42.0% total return vs FOUR's -50.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AMZN at 37.1% vs GMHS's -55.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +4.2% | -21.3% | +20.4% | -31.9% | -12.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -25.9% | -20.6% | +42.0% | -50.0% | -4.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.2% | -5.0% | +157.7% | -30.8% | +37.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.2% | +16.9% | +70.9% | -48.9% | +73.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.2% | +16.9% | +702.2% | +27.3% | +776.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -55.4% | -1.7% | +37.1% | -11.5% | +11.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — GMHS and AMZN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
GMHS is the less volatile stock with a -0.24 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GLBE's 1.53 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AMZN currently trades 97.9% from its 52-week high vs GMHS's 37.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.24x | 1.53x | 1.50x | 1.45x | 0.85x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $2.66 | $43.21 | $278.56 | $108.50 | $555.45 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.68 | $27.80 | $188.82 | $39.91 | $356.28 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +37.6% | +69.0% | +97.9% | +39.3% | +74.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.2 | 53.5 | 74.2 | 52.6 | 57.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 16K | 1.1M | 45.2M | 2.1M | 32.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FOUR and MSFT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GLBE as "Buy", AMZN as "Buy", FOUR as "Buy", MSFT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 70.5% upside for FOUR (target: $73) vs 12.5% for AMZN (target: $307). For income investors, FOUR offers the higher dividend yield at 0.79% vs MSFT's 0.78%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $43.40 | $306.77 | $72.79 | $556.88 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 14 | 94 | 29 | 81 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +0.8% | +0.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | 1 | 19 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $0.34 | $3.23 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.4% | 0.0% | +16.5% | +0.6% |
MSFT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). AMZN leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
GMHS vs GLBE vs AMZN vs FOUR vs MSFT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GMHS or GLBE or AMZN or FOUR or MSFT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Global-e Online Ltd.
(GLBE) is the stronger pick with 27. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -18. 7% for Gamehaus Holdings Inc. (GMHS). Gamehaus Holdings Inc. (GMHS) offers the better valuation at 13. 0x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Global-e Online Ltd. (GLBE) a "Buy" — based on 14 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 — GMHS or GLBE or AMZN or FOUR or MSFT?
On trailing P/E, Gamehaus Holdings Inc.
(GMHS) is the cheapest at 13. 0x versus Global-e Online Ltd. at 76. 4x. On forward P/E, Shift4 Payments, Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 7x — 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: Global-e Online Ltd. wins at 0. 20x versus Microsoft Corporation's 1. 32x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GMHS or GLBE or AMZN or FOUR or MSFT?
Over the past 5 years, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) delivered a total return of +73.
8%, compared to -91. 2% for Gamehaus Holdings Inc. (GMHS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MSFT returned +776. 0% versus GMHS's -91. 2%. 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 — GMHS or GLBE or AMZN or FOUR or MSFT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Gamehaus Holdings Inc.
(GMHS) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 24β versus Global-e Online Ltd. 's 1. 53β — meaning GLBE is approximately -749% more volatile than GMHS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Gamehaus Holdings Inc. (GMHS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 2% for Shift4 Payments, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GMHS or GLBE or AMZN or FOUR or MSFT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Global-e Online Ltd.
(GLBE) is pulling ahead at 27. 8% versus -18. 7% for Gamehaus Holdings Inc. (GMHS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Global-e Online Ltd. grew EPS 186. 7% year-over-year, compared to -64. 4% for Shift4 Payments, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GLBE leads at 33. 0% 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 — GMHS or GLBE or AMZN or FOUR or MSFT?
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the more profitable company, earning 36.
1% net margin versus 2. 8% for Shift4 Payments, Inc. — meaning it keeps 36. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MSFT leads at 45. 6% versus 2. 9% for GMHS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MSFT leads at 68. 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 GMHS or GLBE or AMZN or FOUR or MSFT 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, Global-e Online Ltd. (GLBE) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 20x versus Microsoft Corporation's 1. 32x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Shift4 Payments, Inc. (FOUR) trades at 7. 7x forward P/E versus 31. 4x for Amazon. com, Inc. — 23. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FOUR: 70. 5% to $72. 79.
08Which pays a better dividend — GMHS or GLBE or AMZN or FOUR or MSFT?
In this comparison, FOUR (0.
8% yield), MSFT (0. 8% yield) pay a dividend. GMHS, GLBE, AMZN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GMHS or GLBE or AMZN or FOUR or MSFT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
85), 0. 8% yield, +776. 0% 10Y return). Global-e Online Ltd. (GLBE) carries a higher beta of 1. 53 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MSFT: +776. 0%, GLBE: +16. 9%), 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 GMHS and GLBE and AMZN and FOUR and MSFT?
These companies operate in different sectors (GMHS (Technology) and GLBE (Consumer Cyclical) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical) and FOUR (Technology) and MSFT (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: GMHS is a small-cap deep-value stock; GLBE is a small-cap high-growth stock; AMZN is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; FOUR is a small-cap high-growth stock; MSFT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock. FOUR, MSFT pay a dividend while GMHS, GLBE, AMZN 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.