vs

Side-by-side financial comparison of EURONET WORLDWIDE, INC. (EEFT) and Taylor Morrison Home Corp (TMHC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.

Taylor Morrison Home Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.4B vs $1.1B, roughly 1.3× EURONET WORLDWIDE, INC.). Taylor Morrison Home Corp runs the higher net margin — 7.1% vs 4.7%, a 2.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, EURONET WORLDWIDE, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (5.9% vs -26.8%). Over the past eight quarters, EURONET WORLDWIDE, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (13.7% CAGR vs -16.5%).

Euronet Worldwide is an American provider of global electronic payment services with headquarters in Leawood, Kansas. It offers automated teller machines (ATM), point of sale (POS) services, credit/debit card services, currency exchange and other electronic financial services and payments software. Among others, it provides the prepaid subsidiaries Transact, PaySpot, epay, Movilcarga, TeleRecarga and ATX.

Taylor Morrison is one of the largest home building companies in the United States. Its corporate headquarters are in Scottsdale, Arizona. The company formed when Taylor Woodrow and Morrison Homes joined forces in July 2007. Taylor Morrison operates in Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Nevada, Indiana, and Texas, building mid-to-upscale housing, as well as first-time and mid-market homes.

EEFT vs TMHC — Head-to-Head

Bigger by revenue
TMHC
TMHC
1.3× larger
TMHC
$1.4B
$1.1B
EEFT
Growing faster (revenue YoY)
EEFT
EEFT
+32.7% gap
EEFT
5.9%
-26.8%
TMHC
Higher net margin
TMHC
TMHC
2.4% more per $
TMHC
7.1%
4.7%
EEFT
Faster 2-yr revenue CAGR
EEFT
EEFT
Annualised
EEFT
13.7%
-16.5%
TMHC

Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026

Metric
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Revenue
$1.1B
$1.4B
Net Profit
$51.8M
$98.6M
Gross Margin
21.0%
Operating Margin
9.1%
Net Margin
4.7%
7.1%
Revenue YoY
5.9%
-26.8%
Net Profit YoY
14.3%
-53.8%
EPS (diluted)
$0.97
$1.12

Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.

8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend

Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.

Revenue
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
$1.4B
Q4 25
$1.1B
$2.1B
Q3 25
$1.1B
$2.1B
Q2 25
$1.1B
$2.0B
Q1 25
$915.5M
$1.9B
Q4 24
$1.0B
$2.4B
Q3 24
$1.1B
$2.1B
Q2 24
$986.2M
$2.0B
Net Profit
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
$98.6M
Q4 25
$51.8M
$174.0M
Q3 25
$122.0M
$201.4M
Q2 25
$97.6M
$193.6M
Q1 25
$38.4M
$213.5M
Q4 24
$45.3M
$242.5M
Q3 24
$151.5M
$251.1M
Q2 24
$83.1M
$199.5M
Gross Margin
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
21.0%
Q4 25
22.0%
Q3 25
22.7%
Q2 25
23.0%
Q1 25
24.4%
Q4 24
23.9%
Q3 24
25.0%
Q2 24
23.7%
Operating Margin
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
Q4 25
9.1%
Q3 25
17.0%
Q2 25
14.8%
Q1 25
8.2%
Q4 24
11.7%
Q3 24
16.6%
Q2 24
13.6%
Net Margin
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
7.1%
Q4 25
4.7%
8.3%
Q3 25
10.6%
9.6%
Q2 25
9.1%
9.5%
Q1 25
4.2%
11.3%
Q4 24
4.3%
10.3%
Q3 24
13.8%
11.8%
Q2 24
8.4%
10.0%
EPS (diluted)
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
$1.12
Q4 25
$0.97
$1.77
Q3 25
$2.75
$2.01
Q2 25
$2.27
$1.92
Q1 25
$0.85
$2.07
Q4 24
$0.96
$2.29
Q3 24
$3.21
$2.37
Q2 24
$1.73
$1.86

Balance Sheet & Financial Strength

Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.

Metric
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand
$1.0B
$652.9M
Total DebtLower is stronger
$1.0B
Stockholders' EquityBook value
$1.3B
$6.2B
Total Assets
$6.5B
$9.8B
Debt / EquityLower = less leverage
0.79×

8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.

Cash + ST Investments
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
$652.9M
Q4 25
$1.0B
$850.0M
Q3 25
$1.2B
$370.6M
Q2 25
$1.3B
$130.2M
Q1 25
$1.4B
$377.8M
Q4 24
$1.3B
$487.2M
Q3 24
$1.5B
$256.4M
Q2 24
$1.3B
$246.8M
Total Debt
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
Q4 25
$1.0B
$2.3B
Q3 25
$1.1B
$2.2B
Q2 25
$1.0B
$2.1B
Q1 25
$1.9B
$2.1B
Q4 24
$1.1B
$2.1B
Q3 24
$1.2B
$2.1B
Q2 24
$1.0B
$2.2B
Stockholders' Equity
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
$6.2B
Q4 25
$1.3B
$6.3B
Q3 25
$1.3B
$6.2B
Q2 25
$1.4B
$6.1B
Q1 25
$1.3B
$6.0B
Q4 24
$1.2B
$5.9B
Q3 24
$1.4B
$5.7B
Q2 24
$1.2B
$5.5B
Total Assets
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
$9.8B
Q4 25
$6.5B
$9.8B
Q3 25
$6.3B
$9.6B
Q2 25
$6.6B
$9.5B
Q1 25
$6.1B
$9.4B
Q4 24
$5.8B
$9.3B
Q3 24
$6.3B
$9.3B
Q2 24
$6.1B
$9.1B
Debt / Equity
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
Q4 25
0.79×
0.36×
Q3 25
0.85×
0.35×
Q2 25
0.74×
0.35×
Q1 25
1.46×
0.35×
Q4 24
0.92×
0.36×
Q3 24
0.88×
0.37×
Q2 24
0.85×
0.39×

Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency

How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.

Metric
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Operating Cash FlowLast quarter
$559.8M
Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex
$434.3M
FCF MarginFCF / Revenue
39.2%
Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue
11.3%
Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit
10.81×
TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters
$722.3M

8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.

Operating Cash Flow
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
Q4 25
$559.8M
$646.4M
Q3 25
$197.3M
$219.6M
Q2 25
$182.9M
$-126.0M
Q1 25
$1.7M
$77.2M
Q4 24
$732.8M
$438.2M
Q3 24
$440.3M
$135.9M
Q2 24
$182.2M
$-233.3M
Free Cash Flow
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
Q4 25
$434.3M
$635.3M
Q3 25
$161.2M
$206.6M
Q2 25
$148.3M
$-133.6M
Q1 25
$-21.5M
$68.7M
Q4 24
$615.6M
$428.2M
Q3 24
$414.5M
$127.1M
Q2 24
$148.8M
$-241.7M
FCF Margin
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
Q4 25
39.2%
30.3%
Q3 25
14.1%
9.9%
Q2 25
13.8%
-6.6%
Q1 25
-2.3%
3.6%
Q4 24
58.8%
18.2%
Q3 24
37.7%
6.0%
Q2 24
15.1%
-12.1%
Capex Intensity
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
Q4 25
11.3%
0.5%
Q3 25
3.2%
0.6%
Q2 25
3.2%
0.4%
Q1 25
2.5%
0.4%
Q4 24
11.2%
0.4%
Q3 24
2.3%
0.4%
Q2 24
3.4%
0.4%
Cash Conversion
EEFT
EEFT
TMHC
TMHC
Q1 26
Q4 25
10.81×
3.71×
Q3 25
1.62×
1.09×
Q2 25
1.87×
-0.65×
Q1 25
0.04×
0.36×
Q4 24
16.18×
1.81×
Q3 24
2.91×
0.54×
Q2 24
2.19×
-1.17×

Financial Flow Comparison

Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.

Revenue Breakdown by Segment

EEFT
EEFT

Segment breakdown not available.

TMHC
TMHC

Home closings revenue, net$1.3B95%
Financial services revenue, net$49.3M4%
Land closings revenue$14.5M1%
Amenity and other revenue$11.9M1%

Related Comparisons