FLL Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Boyd Gaming has a net margin of -13.01% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of 11.24%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -78.31% beat Boyd Gaming's return on equity of 34.42%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $4.75, signalling upside risk potential of 19.95%. On the other hand Boyd Gaming has an analysts' consensus of $80.31 which suggests that it could grow by 2.81%. 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 1.603, which suggesting that the stock is 60.344% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Boyd Gaming has a beta of 1.263, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 26.283%.

Full House Resorts has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Boyd Gaming offers a yield of 0.9% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.18 per share. Full House Resorts pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Boyd Gaming pays out 10.84% 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 $75.1M, which are smaller than Boyd Gaming quarterly revenues of $991.6M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$9.8M is lower than Boyd Gaming's net income of $111.4M. Notably, Full House Resorts's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Boyd Gaming's PE ratio is 12.74x. 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 0.47x versus 1.78x for Boyd Gaming. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Golden Entertainment has a net margin of -13.01% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of 1.55%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -78.31% beat Golden Entertainment's return on equity of 2.2%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $4.75, signalling upside risk potential of 19.95%. On the other hand Golden Entertainment has an analysts' consensus of $34.86 which suggests that it could grow by 18.56%. 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 1.603, which suggesting that the stock is 60.344% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Golden Entertainment has a beta of 1.784, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 78.404%.

Full House Resorts has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Golden Entertainment offers a yield of 3.4% 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 42% 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 $75.1M, which are smaller than Golden Entertainment quarterly revenues of $160.8M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$9.8M is lower than Golden Entertainment's net income of $2.5M. Notably, Full House Resorts's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Golden Entertainment's PE ratio is 75.38x. 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 0.47x versus 1.30x for Golden Entertainment. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

High Roller Technologies has a net margin of -13.01% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of -48.38%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -78.31% beat High Roller Technologies's return on equity of -451.9%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $4.75, signalling upside risk potential of 19.95%. On the other hand High Roller Technologies has an analysts' consensus of $8.00 which suggests that it could grow by 204.18%. Given that High Roller Technologies has higher upside potential than Full House Resorts, analysts believe High Roller Technologies is more attractive than Full House Resorts.

Full House Resorts has a beta of 1.603, which suggesting that the stock is 60.344% 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 $75.1M, which are larger than High Roller Technologies quarterly revenues of $6.8M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$9.8M is lower than High Roller Technologies's net income of -$3.3M. 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 0.47x versus 0.78x for High Roller Technologies. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Red Rock Resorts has a net margin of -13.01% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of 8.99%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -78.31% beat Red Rock Resorts's return on equity of 58.75%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $4.75, signalling upside risk potential of 19.95%. On the other hand Red Rock Resorts has an analysts' consensus of $52.46 which suggests that it could grow by 1.77%. 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 1.603, which suggesting that the stock is 60.344% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Red Rock Resorts has a beta of 1.614, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 61.374%.

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 1.94% 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 76.86% 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 $75.1M, which are smaller than Red Rock Resorts quarterly revenues of $497.9M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$9.8M is lower than Red Rock Resorts's net income of $44.7M. Notably, Full House Resorts's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Red Rock Resorts's PE ratio is 19.98x. 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 0.47x versus 2.46x for Red Rock Resorts. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.