Telecommunications Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
OPTU vs LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Telecommunications Services
Telecommunications Services
Telecommunications Services
Telecommunications Services
OPTU vs LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T — 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 | $566M | $8.71B | $9.64B | $517M | $176.40B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $8.59B | $12.12B | $6.11B | $274M | $126.52B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-1.87B | $-1.74B | $-381M | $6M | $21.41B |
| Gross Margin | 69.3% | 35.2% | 65.1% | 61.1% | 79.7% |
| Operating Margin | -1.3% | -2.6% | 5.3% | 1.9% | 19.4% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | — | 14.8x | 10.9x |
| Total Debt | $26.46B | $17.71B | $12.03B | $17M | $173.99B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.12B | $1.00B | $806M | $20M | $18.23B |
OPTU vs LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Optimum Communicati… (OPTU) | 100 | 3.4 | -96.6% |
| 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% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: OPTU vs LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, OPTU doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
LUMN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if defensive is your priority.
- Beta 2.74, yield 0.0%, current ratio 1.80x
- +100.0% vs OPTU's -54.3%
FYBR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for 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 carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta -0.26, yield 4.5%
- Lower P/E (10.9x vs 14.8x)
- 16.9% margin vs OPTU's -21.8%
- 4.5% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs LUMN's 0.0%, (3 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 (10.9x vs 14.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 16.9% margin vs OPTU's -21.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.06 vs LUMN's 2.74 | |
| Dividends | 4.5% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs LUMN's 0.0%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +100.0% vs OPTU's -54.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.1% ROA vs OPTU's -6.0%, ROIC 6.7% vs 5.0% |
OPTU vs LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
OPTU vs LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T — 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 • OPTU leads 0 • FYBR leads 0 • OOMA leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
T leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
T is the larger business by revenue, generating $126.5B annually — 462.4x OOMA's $274M. T is the more profitable business, keeping 16.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to OPTU's -21.8%. On growth, OOMA holds the edge at +14.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $8.6B | $12.1B | $6.1B | $274M | $126.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.6B | $2.4B | $2.1B | $20M | $45.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$1.9B | -$1.7B | -$381M | $6M | $21.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$119M | $5.4B | -$1.4B | -$42M | $10.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +69.3% | +35.2% | +65.1% | +61.1% | +79.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -1.3% | -2.6% | +5.3% | +1.9% | +19.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -21.8% | -14.3% | -6.2% | +2.4% | +16.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -1.4% | +44.9% | -23.2% | -15.3% | +8.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.3% | -8.9% | +4.1% | +14.6% | +2.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -25.0% | 0.0% | +9.1% | — | -11.5% |
Valuation Metrics
T leads this category, winning 4 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 | $566M | $8.7B | $9.6B | $517M | $176.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $25.9B | $25.4B | $20.9B | $514M | $332.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.30x | -4.83x | -29.61x | 82.61x | 8.31x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | 14.78x | 10.93x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.92x | 9.91x | 10.55x | 27.66x | 7.37x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.07x | 0.70x | 1.62x | 1.89x | 1.40x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | — | 1.93x | 5.69x | 1.41x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 23.49x | — | — | 9.07x |
Profitability & Efficiency
T leads this category, winning 6 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 OPTU's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -79.4% | -8.1% | +7.2% | +16.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -6.0% | -5.3% | -1.8% | +3.8% | +5.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.0% | -0.8% | +1.7% | +3.7% | +6.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.4% | -0.6% | +1.8% | +3.4% | +6.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | — | 2.44x | 0.19x | 1.35x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $25.3B | $16.7B | $11.2B | -$3M | $155.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.1B | $1.0B | $806M | $20M | $18.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $26.5B | $17.7B | $12.0B | $17M | $174.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.88x | -1.12x | 0.44x | — | 4.97x |
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 $326 for OPTU. Over the past 12 months, LUMN leads with a +100.0% total return vs OPTU's -54.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LUMN at 54.4% vs OPTU's -26.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -29.7% | +10.0% | +1.1% | +70.6% | +5.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -54.3% | +100.0% | +5.5% | +48.7% | -6.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -59.7% | +267.8% | +105.5% | +60.9% | +67.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.7% | -28.8% | +48.6% | +15.9% | +29.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.3% | -35.7% | +42.8% | +194.6% | +41.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -26.1% | +54.4% | +27.1% | +17.2% | +18.6% |
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 OPTU's 40.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.52x | 2.74x | 0.06x | 1.01x | -0.26x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $2.98 | $11.95 | $38.50 | $19.26 | $29.79 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.14 | $3.37 | $36.04 | $9.79 | $22.95 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +40.6% | +70.8% | +100.0% | +98.7% | +84.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 41.5 | 73.4 | 72.8 | 82.2 | 38.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.5M | 12.5M | 0 | 266K | 33.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — OPTU and T each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: OPTU as "Hold", LUMN as "Hold", FYBR as "Buy", OOMA as "Buy", T as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 65.3% upside for OPTU (target: $2) vs -16.3% for LUMN (target: $7). T is the only dividend payer here at 4.51% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $2.00 | $7.08 | $34.33 | $18.00 | $29.42 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 4 | 28 | 11 | 15 | 62 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.0% | — | — | +4.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 0 | 0 | — | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.00 | — | — | $1.14 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.7% | +3.2% | +2.6% |
T leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). LUMN leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
OPTU vs LUMN vs FYBR vs OOMA vs T: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is OPTU or LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T 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 — OPTU or LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T?
On trailing P/E, AT&T Inc.
(T) is the cheapest at 8. 3x versus Ooma, Inc. at 82. 6x. On forward P/E, AT&T Inc. is actually cheaper at 10. 9x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — OPTU or LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T?
Over the past 5 years, Frontier Communications Parent, Inc.
(FYBR) delivered a total return of +48. 6%, compared to -96. 7% for Optimum Communications, Inc. (OPTU). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: OOMA returned +194. 6% versus OPTU's -96. 3%. 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 — OPTU or LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T?
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 — OPTU or LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T?
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 — OPTU or LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T?
AT&T Inc.
(T) is the more profitable company, earning 17. 4% net margin versus -21. 8% for Optimum Communications, Inc. — meaning it keeps 17. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: T leads at 19. 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 OPTU or LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, AT&T Inc.
(T) trades at 10. 9x forward P/E versus 14. 8x for Ooma, Inc. — 3. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for OPTU: 65. 3% to $2. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — OPTU or LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T?
In this comparison, T (4.
5% yield) pays a dividend. OPTU, LUMN, FYBR, OOMA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is OPTU or LUMN or FYBR or OOMA or T 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 OPTU and LUMN and FYBR and OOMA and T?
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: OPTU is a small-cap quality compounder stock; 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. T pays a dividend while OPTU, 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.