FISV — Fiserv Inc
Snapshot dated August 27, 2026.
Fiserv Inc. provides technology solutions to the financial services industry, primarily operating through its Merchant Solutions, Payments and Network, and Financial Technology segments. The company generates revenue by processing payment transactions for merchants, facilitating card-based payments, and providing core banking platforms to financial institutions. Its customer base includes large financial institutions, community banks, credit unions, and a vast network of merchant clients spanning various retail and service industries. As a major provider of payment and banking technology, Fiserv competes with firms like FIS and Jack Henry & Associates in delivering the critical infrastructure that powers digital transactions and account management. The company recently completed its transition to an integrated model, focusing on cross-selling its digital banking, processing, and merchant acceptance tools to a unified client base. Its operations are global in scale, processing billions of transactions annually across a wide network of digital payment ecosystems.
Fair Value / Share
$79.97
Price on August 27, 2026
$52.66
Margin of Safety
51.85%
Data by Equibles and SEC filings. Figures are as of August 27, 2026 and are not live.
Earnings Yield
Earnings Yield shows how much profit a company generates relative to its share price. EPS ÷ Stock Price.
Stock Price
$52.66
Market Cap
$28,104,642,000
Net Income (TTM)
$2,801,000,000
Diluted Shares
533.7 million
EPS (TTM)
$5.25
Earnings Yield
9.97%
AI Analysis
Fiserv Inc. currently has an earnings yield of 9.97%, which is calculated by dividing its EPS (TTM) of $5.25 by its stock price of $52.66. This figure sits above the 4-5% annual return typically available from a safe, guaranteed bond alternative. Mechanically, this indicates that for every dollar of the current share price, the company generates a larger stream of earnings than a risk-free bond would provide. A higher yield relative to this benchmark implies that the current price assigns a lower premium to the company's future earnings growth. For this yield to move, the stock price or the underlying earnings per share would need to change. This measurement does not capture the company's future growth trajectory, capital allocation strategy, or debt obligations.
Return on Capital
EBIT ÷ (Net Working Capital + Net Fixed Assets) — how efficiently the business turns capital into profit.
EBIT (TTM)
$4,660,000,000
Net Working Capital
$1,637,000,000
Net Fixed Assets
$3,328,000,000
Invested Capital
$4,965,000,000
Return on Capital
93.86%
AI Analysis
Fiserv generated an EBIT of $4.7B on an invested capital base of $5B, resulting in a return on capital of 93.86%. This figure is well above the 30% benchmark for efficient capital use, indicating the business generates significant operating profit relative to the tangible capital required to sustain its operations. A return on capital this high demonstrates that the company extracts substantial value from its fixed assets and working capital. This measure does not capture the timing differences of growth-related capital expenditures, which can temporarily suppress returns if a company is investing heavily in future capacity, nor does it account for intangible assets or goodwill that are excluded from this calculation. Shifts in this metric would occur if the company significantly increases its investment in fixed assets or if its operating margins compress, requiring more capital to produce the same level of profit.
Acquirer's Multiple
Enterprise Value ÷ Operating Earnings — how many years of operating earnings it would take to buy the whole business.
| Company | Operating earnings | Enterprise value | Multiple |
|---|---|---|---|
| FISVFiserv Inc | $4.7B | $55.4B | 11.9x |
| FISFidelity National Information Services, Inc. | $1.9B | $41.5B | 21.7x |
| GPNGlobal Payments Inc | $1.3B | $42.8B | 32.6x |
Where FISV sits: 11.9x against a peer median of 27.1x (peers: 21.7x and 32.6x) — 56.2% below the median.
Show the enterprise value bridge for each companyHide the enterprise value bridge
FISV
Debt $27.9B. This is the company's reported total debt — borrowings due within a year plus long-term borrowings. It carries no separately reported lease obligations.
FIS
Named as a competitor: Direct rival in core core-banking software, merchant acquiring, and issuer processing
Debt $21.2B. This is the company's reported total debt — borrowings due within a year plus long-term borrowings. It carries no separately reported lease obligations.
GPN
Named as a competitor: Competes directly in merchant acquiring and payment processing solutions for businesses
Debt $22.4B. This is the company's reported total debt — borrowings due within a year plus long-term borrowings. It carries no separately reported lease obligations.
Operating earnings — FISV
AI Analysis
Fiserv Inc (FISV) has an Acquirer's Multiple of 11.9x, derived from an enterprise value of $55.4B and operating earnings of $4.7B. Among the peers provided, FIS currently trades at 21.7x, based on an enterprise value of $41.5B and operating earnings of $1.9B. GPN trades at 32.6x, with an enterprise value of $42.8B and operating earnings of $1.3B. Consequently, FISV has the lowest multiple of the group, while GPN has the highest. FISV’s multiple sits at 11.9x against a peer median of 27.1x—56.2% below the median. This comparison is sensitive to differences in capital structure and capital intensity between these firms, as operating earnings measures core profitability without interest or tax distortions. The gap between these figures would narrow if FISV’s operating earnings declined relative to its enterprise value, or if its competitors improved their operating earnings or reduced their enterprise values.
FS-Score
A 10-check read on financial health, across profitability, balance-sheet stability and operating momentum.
FS-Score
5/10
Decent score — worth a deeper look before investing.
Section 1
Current Profitability
3/3
Profitability is Strong, as the company produced positive accounting profits and even higher levels of cash flow during the period.
- Return on Assets is positive at 4.34%
- Free Cash Flow to Total Assets is positive at 5.36%
- Cash Flow from Operations is 1.74 times Net Income, suggesting earnings are backed by cash
This section indicates the business is currently generating a surplus; a decline in cash flow relative to accounting net income would weaken this result.
Return on Assets (ROA > 0)
PassFree Cash Flow to Total Assets (FCFTA > 0)
PassAccruals (CFO / Net Income > 1)
PassSection 2
Stability
1/3
The Stability score is Weak, driven by an increase in the company's debt burden and a slight reduction in its short-term liquidity.
- Long-Term Debt to Total Assets rose from 0.31 to 0.35
- The Current Ratio decreased from 1.06 to 1.03
- Diluted shares outstanding fell from 582.1 million to 549.0 million shares
The score reflects a reliance on increased leverage, which would only be offset if the company stabilized its debt levels or improved its current ratio.
Change in Leverage (↓ or unchanged)
FailChange in Liquidity (↑ Current Ratio)
FailNet Dilution (annual diluted weighted-average shares, this year vs last)
PassSection 3
Recent Operational Improvements
1/4
Operational Improvements are Weak, as most efficiency and margin metrics trended lower compared to the prior year.
- Return on Assets improved from 4.06% to 4.34%
- Free Cash Flow to Total Assets declined from 6.56% to 5.36%
- Gross Margin fell from 60.83% to 59.36%
- Asset Turnover decreased from 0.27 to 0.26
This suggests the business is becoming less efficient at generating sales and cash from its assets, a trend that would require a reversal in margins or turnover to correct.
Change in ROA (↑)
PassChange in FCFTA (↑)
FailChange in Gross Margin (↑)
FailChange in Asset Turnover (↑)
FailFramework conclusion
The company earns a total FS-Score of 5/10, a result described as solid but mixed. While current profitability remains high and cash-backed, the score is weighed down by deteriorating operational efficiency and an increasing debt-to-assets profile. This middle-ground score suggests that if the stock is trading at a low valuation, the price may reflect these specific operational and balance sheet headwinds rather than a simple market mispricing.
- The 1.74 Accruals ratio confirms that cash generation currently exceeds reported net income
- Long-Term Debt to Total Assets increased to 0.35, indicating higher leverage
- Gross Margin compressed to 59.36%, suggesting higher costs or less pricing power over the year
- Asset Turnover fell to 0.26, showing lower revenue productivity per dollar of assets
Intrinsic Value (DCF)
A 10-year discounted cash flow, then the bridge from business value to value per share.
Reported cash flow → unlevered free cash flow
Free Cash Flow (reported)
$3.9B
+ After-Tax Interest Expense
$1.3B
= Unlevered Free Cash Flow
$5.3B
Business value (10-year DCF)
PV of Years 1–10
$37.2B
PV of Terminal Value
$32.8B
= Business Value
$69.9B
Business value → share value
Intrinsic Value (business)
$69.9B
+ Cash & Equivalents
$627M
− Debt
$27.9B
= Shareholders' Value
$42.7B
÷ Diluted Shares
533.7 million
= Fair Value / Share
$79.97
Divided by 533.7 million diluted shares — the weighted-average diluted count from the most recent quarterly income statement, for the quarter ended 2026-06-30.
Risk bucket → discount rate
mid (12%)
Year-1 FCF
$5.3B
Growth rate (yrs 1–10)
6%
Terminal growth (after yr 10)
3%
AI Analysis
This valuation applies a mid-risk bucket, resulting in a 12% discount rate, reflecting Fiserv’s position as a stable player in financial technology balanced against its significant debt load and execution demands. The model seeds the forecast with a fixed Year-1 FCF of $5.3B, which accounts for unlevered cash generation, and assumes a 6.00% annual growth rate over the next decade, a pace consistent with historical cash flow trends and steady demand for merchant processing. The calculation employs a terminal growth rate of 3%, a fixed assumption applied to all companies in this framework to align with long-run economic expectations; the resulting terminal value represents 46.9% of the total business value. To derive the fair value per share, the model adds cash of $627M and subtracts total debt of $27.9B from the aggregate business value before dividing by 533.7 million shares. This produces an estimated fair value per share of $79.97. Compared to the current price of $52.66, this indicates a margin of safety of 51.85%, representing the buffer between the computed estimate and the market price. Because the terminal value accounts for nearly half of the total business value, the result is most sensitive to the terminal growth rate and the discount rate; slight adjustments to either the long-term growth assumption or the perceived risk of the business would shift the final fair value estimate significantly.
Overall Verdict
How the five signals above stack up together, then the full synthesis.
Earnings Yield
9.97% vs ~4-5% bond-yield benchmark
Return on Capital
93.86% ROC vs ~30% benchmark
Acquirer's Multiple
11.9x against a peer median of 27.1x (peers: 21.7x and 32.6x) — 56.2% below the median.
FS-Score
5/10 — Solid but mixed
Intrinsic Value
51.85% margin of safety
The five checks present a clear divide between the company’s operating performance and the current pricing. The Return on Capital of 93.86% and an FS-Score of 5/10 measure how the business functions: the former indicates high capital efficiency well above the benchmark, while the latter reflects a mixed operational track record. Conversely, the Earnings Yield of 9.97%, an Acquirer's Multiple of 11.9x—sitting 56.2% below the peer median—and an Intrinsic Value estimate showing a 51.85% margin of safety describe the current market pricing. This signals that while the operational metrics are not uniformly robust, the price-based metrics indicate a significant gap between the current market valuation and the estimated intrinsic value. The tension here lies in whether the lower FS-Score indicates future operational deterioration or merely temporary inefficiency. A shift in the Return on Capital, which currently acts as the strongest indicator of operational strength, would most significantly alter this overall picture.