FLL Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Boyd Gaming has a net margin of -11.19% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of 13.64%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -59.04% beat Boyd Gaming's return on equity of 29.04%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $6.00, signalling upside risk potential of 56.49%. On the other hand Boyd Gaming has an analysts' consensus of $76.57 which suggests that it could grow by 5.75%. Given that Full House Resorts has higher upside potential than Boyd Gaming, analysts believe Full House Resorts is more attractive than Boyd Gaming.

Full House Resorts has a beta of 1.888, which suggesting that the stock is 88.783% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Boyd Gaming has a beta of 1.544, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 54.417%.

Full House Resorts has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Boyd Gaming offers a yield of 0.94% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.17 per share. Full House Resorts pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Boyd Gaming pays out 10.26% of its earnings as a dividend. Boyd Gaming's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Full House Resorts quarterly revenues are $75.7M, which are smaller than Boyd Gaming quarterly revenues of $961.2M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$8.5M is lower than Boyd Gaming's net income of $131.1M. Notably, Full House Resorts's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Boyd Gaming's PE ratio is 13.82x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Full House Resorts is 0.49x versus 1.81x for Boyd Gaming. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Golden Entertainment has a net margin of -11.19% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of 3.21%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -59.04% beat Golden Entertainment's return on equity of 7.09%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $6.00, signalling upside risk potential of 56.49%. On the other hand Golden Entertainment has an analysts' consensus of $36.63 which suggests that it could grow by 16.68%. Given that Full House Resorts has higher upside potential than Golden Entertainment, analysts believe Full House Resorts is more attractive than Golden Entertainment.

Full House Resorts has a beta of 1.888, which suggesting that the stock is 88.783% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Golden Entertainment has a beta of 2.212, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 121.221%.

Full House Resorts has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Golden Entertainment offers a yield of 3.19% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.25 per share. Full House Resorts pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Golden Entertainment pays out 22.57% of its earnings as a dividend. Golden Entertainment's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Full House Resorts quarterly revenues are $75.7M, which are smaller than Golden Entertainment quarterly revenues of $161.2M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$8.5M is lower than Golden Entertainment's net income of $5.2M. Notably, Full House Resorts's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Golden Entertainment's PE ratio is 25.11x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Full House Resorts is 0.49x versus 1.29x for Golden Entertainment. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

High Roller Technologies has a net margin of -11.19% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of -6.67%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -59.04% beat High Roller Technologies's return on equity of -488.01%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $6.00, signalling upside risk potential of 56.49%. On the other hand High Roller Technologies has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Full House Resorts has higher upside potential than High Roller Technologies, analysts believe Full House Resorts is more attractive than High Roller Technologies.

Full House Resorts has a beta of 1.888, which suggesting that the stock is 88.783% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison High Roller Technologies has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Full House Resorts has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. High Roller Technologies offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Full House Resorts pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. High Roller Technologies pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Full House Resorts quarterly revenues are $75.7M, which are larger than High Roller Technologies quarterly revenues of $7.5M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$8.5M is lower than High Roller Technologies's net income of -$501K. Notably, Full House Resorts's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while High Roller Technologies's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Full House Resorts is 0.49x versus 1.33x for High Roller Technologies. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Red Rock Resorts has a net margin of -11.19% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of 6.19%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -59.04% beat Red Rock Resorts's return on equity of 77.8%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $6.00, signalling upside risk potential of 56.49%. On the other hand Red Rock Resorts has an analysts' consensus of $63.63 which suggests that it could grow by 27.35%. Given that Full House Resorts has higher upside potential than Red Rock Resorts, analysts believe Full House Resorts is more attractive than Red Rock Resorts.

Full House Resorts has a beta of 1.888, which suggesting that the stock is 88.783% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Red Rock Resorts has a beta of 2.005, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 100.478%.

Full House Resorts has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Red Rock Resorts offers a yield of 2.17% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.25 per share. Full House Resorts pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Red Rock Resorts pays out 33.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Red Rock Resorts's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Full House Resorts quarterly revenues are $75.7M, which are smaller than Red Rock Resorts quarterly revenues of $468M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$8.5M is lower than Red Rock Resorts's net income of $29M. Notably, Full House Resorts's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Red Rock Resorts's PE ratio is 17.10x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Full House Resorts is 0.49x versus 2.25x for Red Rock Resorts. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.