Telecommunications Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T vs VZ
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Telecommunications Services
Telecommunications Services
Telecommunications Services
Telecommunications Services
LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T vs VZ — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Telecommunications Services | Telecommunications Services | Telecommunications Services | Telecommunications Services | Telecommunications Services |
| Market Cap | $8.71B | $9.64B | $517M | $176.40B | $198.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $12.12B | $6.11B | $274M | $126.52B | $138.19B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-1.74B | $-381M | $6M | $21.41B | $17.17B |
| Gross Margin | 35.2% | 65.1% | 61.1% | 79.7% | 55.7% |
| Operating Margin | -2.6% | 5.3% | 1.9% | 19.4% | 21.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 14.8x | 10.9x | 9.5x |
| Total Debt | $17.71B | $12.03B | $17M | $173.99B | $200.59B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.00B | $806M | $20M | $18.23B | $19.05B |
LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T vs VZ — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lumen Technologies,… (LUMN) | 100 | 61.1 | -38.9% |
| Frontier Communicat… (FYBR) | 100 | 152.4 | +52.4% |
| Ooma, Inc. (OOMA) | 100 | 97.9 | -2.1% |
| AT&T Inc. (T) | 100 | 113.7 | +13.7% |
| Verizon Communicati… (VZ) | 100 | 83.4 | -16.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T vs VZ
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LUMN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for defensive.
- Beta 2.74, yield 0.0%, current ratio 1.80x
- +100.0% vs T's -6.2%
FYBR is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 42.8% 10Y total return vs OOMA's 194.6%
- Beta 0.06 vs LUMN's 2.74
OOMA is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 6.5%, EPS growth 188.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 8.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.01, Low D/E 18.7%, current ratio 0.93x
- 6.5% revenue growth vs LUMN's -5.4%
T has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in quality and efficiency.
- 16.9% margin vs LUMN's -14.3%
- 5.1% ROA vs LUMN's -5.3%, ROIC 6.7% vs -0.8%
VZ is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta -0.11, yield 5.8%
- Lower P/E (9.5x vs 14.8x)
- 5.8% yield, 11-year raise streak, vs LUMN's 0.0%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 6.5% revenue growth vs LUMN's -5.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.5x vs 14.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 16.9% margin vs LUMN's -14.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.06 vs LUMN's 2.74 | |
| Dividends | 5.8% yield, 11-year raise streak, vs LUMN's 0.0%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +100.0% vs T's -6.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.1% ROA vs LUMN's -5.3%, ROIC 6.7% vs -0.8% |
LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T vs VZ — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T vs VZ — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
T leads in 3 of 6 categories
LUMN leads 1 • VZ leads 1 • FYBR leads 0 • OOMA leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
T leads this category, winning 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
VZ is the larger business by revenue, generating $138.2B annually — 505.1x OOMA's $274M. T is the more profitable business, keeping 16.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to LUMN's -14.3%. On growth, OOMA holds the edge at +14.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $12.1B | $6.1B | $274M | $126.5B | $138.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2.4B | $2.1B | $20M | $45.1B | $47.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$1.7B | -$381M | $6M | $21.4B | $17.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $5.4B | -$1.4B | -$42M | $10.6B | $19.8B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +35.2% | +65.1% | +61.1% | +79.7% | +55.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -2.6% | +5.3% | +1.9% | +19.4% | +21.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -14.3% | -6.2% | +2.4% | +16.9% | +12.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +44.9% | -23.2% | -15.3% | +8.4% | +14.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -8.9% | +4.1% | +14.6% | +2.9% | +2.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | 0.0% | +9.1% | — | -11.5% | -53.4% |
Valuation Metrics
T leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 8.3x trailing earnings, T trades at a 90% valuation discount to OOMA's 82.6x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, T's 7.4x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than OOMA's 27.7x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $8.7B | $9.6B | $517M | $176.4B | $198.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $25.4B | $20.9B | $514M | $332.2B | $380.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -4.83x | -29.61x | 82.61x | 8.31x | 11.60x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 14.78x | 10.93x | 9.52x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.91x | 10.55x | 27.66x | 7.37x | 7.99x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.70x | 1.62x | 1.89x | 1.40x | 1.44x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 1.93x | 5.69x | 1.41x | 1.88x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 23.49x | — | — | 9.07x | 9.87x |
Profitability & Efficiency
T leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
T delivers a 16.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $17 in annual profit, vs $-79 for LUMN. OOMA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.19x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FYBR's 2.44x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), T scores 7/9 vs VZ's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -79.4% | -8.1% | +7.2% | +16.8% | +16.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -5.3% | -1.8% | +3.8% | +5.1% | +4.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -0.8% | +1.7% | +3.7% | +6.7% | +8.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.6% | +1.8% | +3.4% | +6.8% | +8.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 2.44x | 0.19x | 1.35x | 1.90x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $16.7B | $11.2B | -$3M | $155.8B | $181.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.0B | $806M | $20M | $18.2B | $19.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $17.7B | $12.0B | $17M | $174.0B | $200.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -1.12x | 0.44x | — | 4.97x | 4.39x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
LUMN leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in FYBR five years ago would be worth $14,855 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $7,119 for LUMN. Over the past 12 months, LUMN leads with a +100.0% total return vs T's -6.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LUMN at 54.4% vs VZ's 13.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +10.0% | +1.1% | +70.6% | +5.1% | +19.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +100.0% | +5.5% | +48.7% | -6.2% | +13.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +267.8% | +105.5% | +60.9% | +67.0% | +45.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -28.8% | +48.6% | +15.9% | +29.9% | +2.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -35.7% | +42.8% | +194.6% | +41.9% | +41.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +54.4% | +27.1% | +17.2% | +18.6% | +13.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FYBR and T each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
T is the less volatile stock with a -0.26 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LUMN's 2.74 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FYBR currently trades 100.0% from its 52-week high vs LUMN's 70.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.74x | 0.06x | 1.01x | -0.26x | -0.11x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $11.95 | $38.50 | $19.26 | $29.79 | $51.68 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.37 | $36.04 | $9.79 | $22.95 | $10.60 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +70.8% | +100.0% | +98.7% | +84.8% | +91.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 73.4 | 72.8 | 82.2 | 38.9 | 49.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 12.5M | 0 | 266K | 33.7M | 24.3M |
Analyst Outlook
VZ leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LUMN as "Hold", FYBR as "Buy", OOMA as "Buy", T as "Hold", VZ as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 16.5% upside for T (target: $29) vs -16.3% for LUMN (target: $7). For income investors, VZ offers the higher dividend yield at 5.76% vs T's 4.51%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.08 | $34.33 | $18.00 | $29.42 | $51.56 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 28 | 11 | 15 | 62 | 60 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.0% | — | — | +4.5% | +5.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | — | 2 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.00 | — | — | $1.14 | $2.71 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.7% | +3.2% | +2.6% | 0.0% |
T leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). LUMN leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T vs VZ: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T or VZ a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Ooma, Inc.
(OOMA) is the stronger pick with 6. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 4% for Lumen Technologies, Inc. (LUMN). AT&T Inc. (T) offers the better valuation at 8. 3x trailing P/E (10. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. (FYBR) a "Buy" — based on 11 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 — LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T or VZ?
On trailing P/E, AT&T Inc.
(T) is the cheapest at 8. 3x versus Ooma, Inc. at 82. 6x. On forward P/E, Verizon Communications Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 5x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T or VZ?
Over the past 5 years, Frontier Communications Parent, Inc.
(FYBR) delivered a total return of +48. 6%, compared to -28. 8% for Lumen Technologies, Inc. (LUMN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: OOMA returned +194. 6% versus LUMN's -35. 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 — LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T or VZ?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), AT&T Inc.
(T) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 26β versus Lumen Technologies, Inc. 's 2. 74β — meaning LUMN is approximately -1156% more volatile than T relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Ooma, Inc. (OOMA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 19% versus 2% for Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T or VZ?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Ooma, Inc.
(OOMA) is pulling ahead at 6. 5% versus -5. 4% for Lumen Technologies, Inc. (LUMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Ooma, Inc. grew EPS 188. 5% year-over-year, compared to -30. 4% for Lumen Technologies, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, OOMA leads at 8. 2% 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 — LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T or VZ?
AT&T Inc.
(T) is the more profitable company, earning 17. 4% net margin versus -14. 0% for Lumen Technologies, Inc. — meaning it keeps 17. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: VZ leads at 21. 2% versus -1. 5% for LUMN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — T leads at 79. 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 LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T or VZ more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Verizon Communications Inc.
(VZ) trades at 9. 5x forward P/E versus 14. 8x for Ooma, Inc. — 5. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for T: 16. 5% to $29. 42.
08Which pays a better dividend — LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T or VZ?
In this comparison, VZ (5.
8% yield), T (4. 5% yield) pay a dividend. LUMN, FYBR, OOMA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T or VZ better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, AT&T Inc.
(T) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 26), 4. 5% yield). Lumen Technologies, Inc. (LUMN) carries a higher beta of 2. 74 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (T: +41. 9%, LUMN: -35. 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 LUMN and FYBR and OOMA and T and VZ?
Both stocks operate in the Communication Services sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: LUMN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FYBR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; OOMA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; T is a mid-cap deep-value stock; VZ is a mid-cap deep-value stock. T, VZ pay a dividend while LUMN, FYBR, OOMA 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.
- Sector: Communication Services
- Market Cap > $100B
- Revenue Growth > 7%
- Gross Margin > 36%
- Sector: Communication Services
- Market Cap > $100B
- Net Margin > 10%
- Dividend Yield > 1.8%
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.