Akamai Technologies vs GoDaddy
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Akamai Technologies and GoDaddy side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- GoDaddy is the larger business, with $5.0B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $4.2B for Akamai Technologies.
- GoDaddy grew revenue faster (8.3%, against 5.4%).
- GoDaddy kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (22.8% operating margin, against 13.5%).
- GoDaddy turned more of its sales into free cash flow (31.8% FCF margin, against 24.0%).
- GoDaddy earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (30.6%, against 6.3%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Akamai Technologies’s earnings: a P/E of 35.6x against 16.3x for GoDaddy.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 10 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Akamai Technologies
AKAM
2/10
Piotroski F-scoreShare count change
GoDaddy
GDDY
8/10
Revenue growth5-year growthOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityNet debt / EBITDA
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | AKAM FY25 | GDDY FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $15.1B | $14.4B |
| Revenue | $4.2B | $5.0B |
| Free cash flow | $1.0B | $1.6B |
| Net income | $452M | $875M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 5.4% | 8.3% |
| 5-year growth | 5.6% | 8.3% |
| Share count change | −4.7% | −3.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.0% | — |
| Operating margin | 13.5% | 22.8% |
| Net margin | 10.7% | 17.7% |
| FCF margin | 24.0% | 31.8% |
| Return on capital | 6.3% | 30.6% |
| Return on equity | 9.2% | 192.9% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $2.9B | $2.7B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.3x | 2.2x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $800M | $1.6B |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 35.6x | 16.3x |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 5 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.