Fidelity National Information Services vs Global Payments
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Fidelity National Information Services and Global Payments side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Fidelity National Information Services is the larger business, with $10.7B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $7.7B for Global Payments.
- Fidelity National Information Services grew revenue faster (5.4%, against −0.4%).
- Global Payments kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (22.8% operating margin, against 16.3%).
- Global Payments turned more of its sales into free cash flow (26.5% FCF margin, against 23.0%).
- Fidelity National Information Services earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (5.1%, against 3.8%).
Who comes out ahead
Of the 11 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Fidelity National Information Services
FIS
4/11
Revenue growthReturn on capitalNet debt / EBITDAShare count change
Global Payments
GPN
7/11
5-year growthGross marginOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on equityPiotroski F-score
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | FIS FY25 | GPN FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $19.1B | $22.1B |
| Revenue | $10.7B | $7.7B |
| Free cash flow | $2.5B | $2.0B |
| Net income | $382M | $1.4B |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 5.4% | −0.4% |
| 5-year growth | −3.2% | 0.8% |
| Share count change | −5.4% | −5.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.9% | 72.6% |
| Operating margin | 16.3% | 22.8% |
| Net margin | 3.6% | 18.2% |
| FCF margin | 23.0% | 26.5% |
| Return on capital | 5.1% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity | 2.6% | 6.2% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $12.5B | $13.2B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.4x | 4.4x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $2.3B | $1.4B |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 5.7x | — |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 |
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.