FLL Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Boyd Gaming has a net margin of -16.86% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of 11.24%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -68.49% beat Boyd Gaming's return on equity of 34.3%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $5.50, signalling upside risk potential of 76.85%. On the other hand Boyd Gaming has an analysts' consensus of $79.67 which suggests that it could grow by 15.68%. 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 1.675, which suggesting that the stock is 67.469% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Boyd Gaming has a beta of 1.310, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 30.96%.

Full House Resorts has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Boyd Gaming offers a yield of 1% 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 $73M, which are smaller than Boyd Gaming quarterly revenues of $991.6M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$12.3M 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 11.23x. 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 0.37x versus 1.57x for Boyd Gaming. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Golden Entertainment has a net margin of -16.86% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of 1.81%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -68.49% beat Golden Entertainment's return on equity of 9.63%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $5.50, signalling upside risk potential of 76.85%. On the other hand Golden Entertainment has an analysts' consensus of $36.00 which suggests that it could grow by 36.78%. 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 1.675, which suggesting that the stock is 67.469% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Golden Entertainment has a beta of 1.989, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 98.898%.

Full House Resorts has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Golden Entertainment offers a yield of 3.8% 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 $73M, which are smaller than Golden Entertainment quarterly revenues of $164.2M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$12.3M is lower than Golden Entertainment's net income of $3M. Notably, Full House Resorts's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Golden Entertainment's PE ratio is 15.76x. 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 0.37x versus 1.17x for Golden Entertainment. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

High Roller Technologies has a net margin of -16.86% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of -25.68%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -68.49% beat High Roller Technologies's return on equity of -387.82%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $5.50, signalling upside risk potential of 76.85%. 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 1.675, which suggesting that the stock is 67.469% 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 $73M, which are larger than High Roller Technologies quarterly revenues of $8.1M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$12.3M is lower than High Roller Technologies's net income of -$2.1M. 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 0.37x versus 0.92x for High Roller Technologies. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Red Rock Resorts has a net margin of -16.86% compared to Full House Resorts's net margin of 9.4%. Full House Resorts's return on equity of -68.49% beat Red Rock Resorts's return on equity of 64.1%.

Full House Resorts has a consensus price target of $5.50, signalling upside risk potential of 76.85%. On the other hand Red Rock Resorts has an analysts' consensus of $51.75 which suggests that it could grow by 21.48%. 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 1.675, which suggesting that the stock is 67.469% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Red Rock Resorts has a beta of 1.690, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 69.015%.

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 2.35% 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 $73M, which are smaller than Red Rock Resorts quarterly revenues of $495.7M. Full House Resorts's net income of -$12.3M is lower than Red Rock Resorts's net income of $46.6M. Notably, Full House Resorts's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Red Rock Resorts's PE ratio is 16.97x. 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 0.37x versus 2.04x for Red Rock Resorts. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.