AppLovin's 75% ROIC: AI Ad-Tech Crushing Unity and Trade Desk
AppLovin's ROIC went from 4.5% to 75% in 2.5 years while revenue growth accelerated from +17% to +86%. Meanwhile, Unity's ironSource merger resulted in -9% ROIC and declining revenue. The data reveals one of the most dramatic capital efficiency divergences in tech history.
AppLovin's 75% ROIC: Why AI Ad-Tech Is Crushing Unity and Trade Desk
Last Updated: December 30, 2025 Data Currency: Q3 2025 10-Q filings for all companies. APP, U, TTD
TL;DR: AppLovin's ROIC went from 4.5% to 75% in 2.5 years—a 16x improvement that represents one of the most dramatic capital efficiency transformations in tech history. Meanwhile, Unity's ironSource merger resulted in -9% ROIC and declining revenue. The key differentiator: AppLovin cut SBC from 11% to 3.4% while revenue grew 86%—the opposite of typical hypergrowth behavior. Trade Desk (14% ROIC) is solid but lacks the AI-driven acceleration. For investors focused on earnings quality, the data clearly ranks these ad-tech platforms: APP >> TTD >> U.
Quick Comparison Table
Before diving deep, here's the executive summary of capital efficiency across the three ad-tech platforms:
| Metric | APP | TTD | U | Best |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue (TTM) | $6.63B | $2.79B | $1.80B | APP |
| Revenue YoY | +86% | +21% | -8% | APP |
| Operating Margin | 50% | 19% | -28% | APP |
| ROIC (TTM) | 75% | 14% | -9% | APP |
| ROIC Trajectory (2.5Y) | 4.5%→75% | 3%→14% | -20%→-9% | APP |
| FCF | $3.36B | $0.69B | $0.39B | APP |
| FCF Margin | 51% | 25% | 22% | APP |
| SBC/Revenue | 3.4% | 18% | 22% | APP |
| Net Debt/EBITDA | 0.74x | Net Cash | 25x | TTD |
| Cash Conversion Cycle | -60 days | ~30 days | +105 days | APP |
| Gross Margin | 79% | 79% | 74% | Tie |
Source: SEC 10-Q/10-K filings via MetricDuck. Data as of Q3 2025 TTM.
What Is a Good ROIC for Ad-Tech Companies?
Before diving into company-specific analysis, here's how to interpret ROIC values in the ad-tech sector:
| Rating | ROIC Range | Interpretation | Current Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exceptional | >50% | Elite capital efficiency, structural AI moat | APP (75%) |
| Excellent | 20-50% | Strong competitive advantage, sustainable returns | — |
| Good | 10-20% | Competitive returns, solid business model | TTD (14%) |
| Below Average | 0-10% | Improvement needed, commodity economics | — |
| Poor/Destructive | <0% | Capital destruction, shareholder value erosion | U (-9%) |
Why ROIC over ROE? Return on Equity (ROE) can be artificially inflated by leverage—companies that borrow heavily to fund operations can show high ROE even with poor underlying efficiency. ROIC strips out this leverage effect by measuring returns on all invested capital (debt + equity), revealing true operational performance. For ad-tech companies with varying capital structures, ROIC provides a cleaner comparison.
For further reading on return metrics, see CFA Institute's guidance on return concepts and Investopedia's ROIC explanation.
Why Did AppLovin's ROIC Go From 4.5% to 75% While Unity Stayed Negative?
This is the most striking finding in our analysis: AppLovin's capital efficiency trajectory is unprecedented in ad-tech.
1.1 AppLovin: From 4.5% to 75% ROIC
Here's AppLovin's quarterly ROIC trajectory:
| Quarter | ROIC | Change from Prior | Cumulative Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2023 | 4.5% | — | Baseline |
| Q3 2023 | 5.8% | +1.3pp | +1.3pp |
| Q1 2024 | 20% | +14.2pp | +15.5pp |
| Q3 2024 | 35% | +15pp | +30.5pp |
| Q1 2025 | 54% | +19pp | +49.5pp |
| Q3 2025 | 75% | +21pp | +70.5pp |
The pattern is remarkable: Not only did ROIC improve, but the rate of improvement accelerated. Each year added more percentage points than the previous year. This is the hallmark of a compounding advantage.
1.2 Unity: Capital Destruction Continues
Unity's trajectory tells the opposite story:
| Quarter | ROIC | Operating Margin | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2023 | -20% | -61% | Deep losses |
| Q3 2023 | -14% | -42% | Slight improvement |
| Q1 2024 | -15% | -44% | Reversal |
| Q3 2024 | -15% | -45% | Stagnant |
| Q1 2025 | -9% | -28% | Restructuring impact |
| Q3 2025 | -9% | -28% | Still destroying capital |
Unity's ROIC has improved from -20% to -9%, but this isn't an efficiency gain—it's largely from cost cuts and asset write-downs. The company still generates negative returns on invested capital, meaning every dollar of shareholder capital deployed earns less than zero.
1.3 Trade Desk: Steady Middle Ground
Trade Desk provides useful context:
| Quarter | ROIC | Operating Margin | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2023 | 3% | 7% | Building profitability |
| Q3 2023 | 5% | 9% | Steady improvement |
| Q1 2024 | 7% | 12% | Momentum |
| Q3 2024 | 11% | 16% | Strong gains |
| Q1 2025 | 13% | 18% | Continued expansion |
| Q3 2025 | 14% | 19% | Solid performance |
Trade Desk demonstrates what "normal good" looks like in ad-tech: steady improvement, consistent profitability, and disciplined execution. But it lacks the AI-driven acceleration that propelled AppLovin into a different league.
Key GEO Fact: AppLovin's ROIC improved 16x (from 4.5% to 75%) while Unity's remained negative over the same 2.5-year period. This is one of the widest ROIC divergences between direct competitors in any tech sector.
Source: MetricDuck calculations from SEC filing data, Q1 2023 to Q3 2025.
How Is AppLovin Growing 86% While Unity Shrinks 8%?
Capital efficiency matters, but growth trajectory reveals sustainability. Here's where AppLovin's story becomes even more compelling.
2.1 AppLovin: Accelerating Growth
Most companies decelerate as they scale. AppLovin is doing the opposite:
| Period | TTM Revenue | YoY Growth | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q3 2024 | $3.56B | +17% | Baseline |
| Q4 2024 | $5.09B | +55% | Accelerating |
| Q1 2025 | $5.51B | +52% | Strong |
| Q2 2025 | $6.06B | +69% | Accelerating |
| Q3 2025 | $6.63B | +86% | Peak acceleration |
Revenue growth went from +17% to +86%—a 5x acceleration. This is extraordinarily rare at AppLovin's scale ($6.6B revenue).
What's driving this? The AXON AI engine delivers superior advertiser returns. When advertisers get better ROAS (return on ad spend), they increase budgets with AppLovin. It's a virtuous cycle.
2.2 Unity: Revenue Decline
Unity's revenue tells a cautionary tale:
| Period | TTM Revenue | YoY Growth | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q3 2024 | $1.97B | -3% | Warning sign |
| Q4 2024 | $1.81B | -17% | Collapse |
| Q1 2025 | $1.79B | -17% | Continued decline |
| Q2 2025 | $1.78B | -14% | Slight stabilization |
| Q3 2025 | $1.80B | -8% | Still declining |
The ironSource merger was supposed to create a mobile ad-tech powerhouse. Instead, it created integration chaos that drove customers away. Revenue declined from $2.2B to $1.8B—an 18% shrinkage in absolute terms.
2.3 Trade Desk: Steady Deceleration
Trade Desk shows normal deceleration for a maturing company:
| Period | TTM Revenue | YoY Growth | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q3 2024 | $2.31B | +26% | Strong |
| Q4 2024 | $2.44B | +26% | Consistent |
| Q1 2025 | $2.57B | +25% | Slight slowdown |
| Q2 2025 | $2.68B | +23% | Deceleration |
| Q3 2025 | $2.79B | +21% | Normalizing |
21% growth is excellent for a $2.8B revenue company. Trade Desk's CTV (Connected TV) advertising focus provides secular tailwinds. But compared to AppLovin's +86%, the difference is stark.
The Crossover Point: In Q4 2024, AppLovin's revenue crossed from below Unity's combined entity to more than 3x Unity's size. The companies that were once peers are now in different leagues.
Why Does AppLovin Pay 3% SBC While Unity Pays 22%?
Stock-based compensation reveals management's capital allocation priorities. This is where AppLovin's discipline becomes most apparent.
3.1 Counter-Cyclical SBC Reduction
Most hypergrowth companies increase SBC as they grow—they need equity to attract talent during rapid expansion. AppLovin did the opposite:
| Period | APP SBC/Rev | APP Revenue Growth | Normal Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2023 | 7.9% | — | Baseline |
| Q4 2023 | 11% | +12% | SBC rising (normal) |
| Q3 2024 | 10.2% | +17% | Peak SBC |
| Q1 2025 | 6.1% | +52% | SBC falling |
| Q3 2025 | 3.4% | +86% | Extraordinary |
This is extremely rare. AppLovin cut SBC from 11% to 3.4% of revenue while growing 86%. This demonstrates:
- The business generates enough cash to compensate with cash, not stock
- Management prioritizes shareholder dilution minimization
- Employee retention doesn't require excessive equity grants
3.2 Unity's Persistent Dilution Problem
Unity shows the opposite pattern:
| Period | U SBC/Rev | U Revenue Growth | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2023 | 39% | -31% | Crisis level |
| Q4 2023 | 30% | -12% | Still excessive |
| Q3 2024 | 34% | -3% | No improvement |
| Q1 2025 | 24% | -17% | Restructuring cuts |
| Q3 2025 | 22% | -8% | Still 6x AppLovin |
Even after aggressive cost-cutting, Unity still pays 22% of revenue in SBC—more than 6x AppLovin's rate. At this level, shareholders face significant annual dilution that erodes per-share value even if the company eventually becomes profitable.
3.3 Shareholder Dilution Impact
Let's quantify the impact over time:
| Metric | APP | U | TTD |
|---|---|---|---|
| SBC (TTM) | $224M | $403M | $508M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6.63B | $1.80B | $2.79B |
| SBC/Revenue | 3.4% | 22% | 18% |
| Annual Dilution Rate | ~1.4% | ~5%+ | ~3%+ |
| 5-Year Dilution (est.) | ~7% | ~25%+ | ~15%+ |
Translation: Over 5 years, Unity shareholders face potential 25%+ dilution from SBC alone. AppLovin shareholders face ~7%. This difference compounds dramatically over time.
Enterprise API Access: Need SBC/Revenue data programmatically? Our Enterprise API provides raw XBRL facts with native_id for full audit trails. Build custom dilution analysis tools with 211+ metrics. Used by hedge funds and RIAs.
Which Ad-Tech Company Generates the Most Free Cash Flow?
Free cash flow reveals whether profits are real or accounting artifacts. AppLovin passes this test decisively.
4.1 FCF Compounding Machine
AppLovin's FCF trajectory shows exceptional cash generation:
| Period | FCF (TTM) | FCF Margin | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2023 | $733M | 25% | Strong baseline |
| Q4 2023 | $1.06B | 32% | Improving |
| Q3 2024 | $1.74B | 49% | Exceptional |
| Q1 2025 | $2.54B | 46% | Continued growth |
| Q3 2025 | $3.36B | 51% | Best-in-class |
FCF grew 4.6x while revenue grew 2.3x. This means FCF margin expanded significantly—more of each revenue dollar converts to cash. This is the signature of operating leverage.
4.2 FCF Comparison Table
| Metric | APP | TTD | U |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCF (TTM) | $3.36B | $0.69B | $0.39B |
| FCF Margin | 51% | 25% | 22% |
| FCF/Market Cap | 2.8% | 1.1% | 1.6% |
| FCF Growth (2Y) | +358% | +36% | N/A |
AppLovin generates nearly 5x Trade Desk's FCF and nearly 9x Unity's—despite Unity having been the larger company just 2 years ago.
4.3 Cash Conversion Quality
Cash conversion ratio (Operating Cash Flow / Net Income) reveals earnings quality:
| Company | Cash Conversion | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| APP | 1.19x | Excellent—cash exceeds earnings |
| TTD | 1.2x | Excellent—high quality |
| U | Negative | Poor—loses money, no meaningful ratio |
Both AppLovin and Trade Desk generate more cash than their GAAP earnings suggest—a sign of high-quality, sustainable profits.
What's Driving AppLovin's 45pp Margin Expansion?
AppLovin's margin expansion demonstrates the power of AI-driven operating leverage.
5.1 Operating Margin Trajectory
| Period | APP Op Margin | U Op Margin | TTD Op Margin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2023 | 5% | -61% | 7% |
| Q4 2023 | 20% | -38% | 10% |
| Q3 2024 | 43% | -45% | 16% |
| Q1 2025 | 39% | -28% | 18% |
| Q3 2025 | 50% | -28% | 19% |
AppLovin gained 45 percentage points of operating margin in 2.5 years. This is extraordinary by any standard.
5.2 What Drives Operating Leverage?
AppLovin's AXON AI engine creates structural advantages:
- R&D efficiency: AI improvements compound without proportional cost increases
- Sales efficiency: Better ad targeting attracts advertisers without proportional marketing spend
- Scale effects: Infrastructure costs don't scale linearly with revenue
- Network effects: More data improves AI, which attracts more advertisers, generating more data
Unity lacks this AI advantage. Its ad platform competes on execution rather than algorithmic superiority, resulting in commodity economics.
Why Does AppLovin Collect Before Paying While Unity Does the Opposite?
Cash Conversion Cycle (CCC) reveals working capital efficiency. This metric exposes a critical difference between these companies.
6.1 CCC Comparison
| Company | CCC (Days) | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| APP | -60 days | Collects from customers BEFORE paying suppliers |
| TTD | ~30 days | Standard business cycle |
| U | +105 days | Pays suppliers BEFORE collecting from customers |
AppLovin's negative CCC is exceptional. A -60 day CCC means:
- Advertisers pay AppLovin upfront
- AppLovin pays publishers/partners later
- The company is essentially funded by its customers
- No working capital investment needed for growth
Unity's +105 day CCC means the opposite—the company must fund over 3 months of working capital before collecting revenue. This strains cash flow and requires external financing for growth.
6.2 Balance Sheet Implications
| Metric | APP | TTD | U |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net Debt/EBITDA | 0.74x | Net Cash | 25x |
| Interest Coverage | 14x | 345x | Negative |
| Working Capital Need | Negative | Low | High |
Unity's 25x Net Debt/EBITDA is distressed-level leverage. The company cannot cover its interest expense with operating income (negative coverage). This limits strategic options and increases bankruptcy risk if losses continue.
Balance Sheet Red Flag: Unity's 25x Net Debt/EBITDA and negative interest coverage indicate financial distress. The company relies on continued access to capital markets to fund operations. Any credit market disruption could force additional dilutive equity raises or asset sales.
What Happened After Unity Rejected AppLovin's $17.5B Offer?
Unity's trajectory offers important lessons about M&A execution.
7.1 The 2022 Decision
In August 2022, Unity faced a choice:
- Option A: Accept AppLovin's $17.5 billion merger offer
- Option B: Merge with ironSource for $4.4 billion
Unity chose Option B.
7.2 The Aftermath
| Metric | At Decision (Aug 2022) | Now (Dec 2025) | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unity Stock | ~$50 | ~$22 | -56% |
| AppLovin Stock | ~$30 | ~$340 | +1,033% |
| Combined Entity Value | $17.5B (APP offer) | ~$9B (U alone) | -48% |
If Unity had accepted AppLovin's offer, shareholders would have participated in one of the greatest tech stock rallies in history. Instead, they experienced a 56% decline while watching the rejected acquirer appreciate 1,000%+.
7.3 What Went Wrong
The ironSource merger faced multiple challenges:
- Cultural clash: Different company cultures created integration friction
- Product overlap: Redundant offerings led to customer confusion
- Talent departure: Key executives left during integration
- Market share loss: Customers migrated to competitors during chaos
- Strategic drift: Multiple CEO changes led to inconsistent strategy
Which Ad-Tech Stock Is Best for Your Portfolio?
Different investors have different objectives. Here's how the data maps to investment styles:
8.1 For Growth Investors
The data suggests: AppLovin offers the best combination of growth (+86% revenue) and profitability (50% operating margin). The AI-driven model creates sustainable competitive advantages.
| Criteria | APP | TTD | U |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +86% | +21% | -8% |
| Growth Acceleration | Yes | No | N/A |
| Profitable Growth | Yes | Yes | No |
8.2 For Quality Investors
The data suggests: AppLovin's 75% ROIC, 51% FCF margin, and 3.4% SBC/Revenue make it the clear quality leader. Trade Desk offers solid quality at lower valuations.
| Criteria | APP | TTD | U |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROIC | 75% | 14% | -9% |
| FCF Margin | 51% | 25% | 22% |
| SBC Discipline | Excellent | Moderate | Poor |
8.3 For Value Investors
The data suggests: None of these stocks are traditional value plays. However, Trade Desk's more modest valuation with solid fundamentals offers relative value versus AppLovin's premium multiple.
8.4 For Income Investors
The data suggests: None of these companies pay dividends. AppLovin does conduct buybacks (0.7% yield), but these are not income-oriented investments.
What Are the Key Risks for Each Ad-Tech Stock?
Every investment has risks. Here's what to monitor:
9.1 AppLovin Risks
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| AI model degradation | High | Monitor quarterly ROAS metrics |
| Valuation compression | High | Premium priced for perfection |
| Platform policy changes | Medium | Apple/Google could restrict mobile ads |
| Customer concentration | Medium | Dependency on major mobile game publishers |
| Competition from Google/Meta | Medium | Large players could copy AXON approach |
9.2 Trade Desk Risks
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| CTV market slowdown | Medium | Secular tailwinds may moderate |
| Cookie deprecation impact | Medium | Alternative ID solutions in place |
| Margin pressure | Low | Stable but not expanding rapidly |
| Competition | Medium | Google, Meta, Amazon compete in CTV |
9.3 Unity Risks
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Continued losses | High | No clear path to profitability |
| Balance sheet stress | High | 25x leverage is distressed |
| Market share erosion | High | Competitors gaining ground |
| Management turnover | Medium | Stability improving under new CEO |
| Dilution | High | 22% SBC erodes shareholder value |
How Do APP, TTD, and U Rank on Capital Efficiency?
Based on the comprehensive data analysis:
Capital Efficiency Ranking
| Rank | Company | ROIC | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | APP | 75% | Exceptional—AI-driven advantage |
| 2 | TTD | 14% | Solid—steady performer |
| 3 | U | -9% | Poor—destroying capital |
Earnings Quality Ranking
| Rank | Company | Key Strength | Key Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | APP | 51% FCF margin, 3% SBC | Valuation premium |
| 2 | TTD | Consistent profitability | Slower growth |
| 3 | U | FCF positive | Operating losses, high SBC |
Overall Assessment
For investors prioritizing capital efficiency and earnings quality, the data clearly ranks these ad-tech platforms:
AppLovin >> Trade Desk >> Unity
The gap between AppLovin and its peers is not marginal—it's structural. The AXON AI engine has created a compounding advantage that may persist for years.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is AppLovin's current ROIC?
AppLovin's trailing twelve-month ROIC is 75% as of Q3 2025, up from just 4.5% in Q1 2023. This represents a 16x improvement in capital efficiency over 2.5 years, driven by the AXON AI engine's superior ad targeting capabilities.
Why is Unity's ROIC negative?
Unity's ROIC is -9% because the company continues to lose money operationally (-28% operating margin) while consuming capital. The failed ironSource merger integration, massive restructuring charges, and 22% SBC/Revenue dilution have destroyed shareholder value.
How does AppLovin compare to Unity on SBC dilution?
AppLovin pays only 3.4% of revenue in stock-based compensation, while Unity pays 22%—more than 6x higher. Remarkably, AppLovin reduced SBC from 11% to 3.4% while revenue grew 86%, demonstrating exceptional discipline that most hypergrowth companies lack.
What is the AXON AI engine and how does it drive margins?
AXON is AppLovin's proprietary AI/ML advertising engine that optimizes ad targeting and ROAS for advertisers. It has driven AppLovin's operating margin from 5% to 50% by improving ad monetization efficiency without proportional cost increases, creating extreme operating leverage.
Is AppLovin's 75% ROIC sustainable?
The 8-quarter trend shows consistent improvement from 4.5% to 75%, suggesting the AI advantage is durable. However, sustainability risks include competitive responses from Google/Meta, potential advertiser concentration, and the inherent difficulty of maintaining 75%+ returns at scale.
Which ad-tech stock has the best capital efficiency?
AppLovin has the best capital efficiency with 75% ROIC, followed by Trade Desk at 14%, while Unity destroys capital at -9% ROIC. AppLovin's AI engine creates a structural advantage that converts revenue growth into exceptional returns on invested capital.
Methodology
Data Sources
- Financial data: Sourced directly from SEC 10-Q and 10-K filings via EDGAR
- ROIC calculation: NOPAT / Invested Capital (asset-based method)
- SBC/Revenue: Stock-based compensation / Total revenue (TTM)
- FCF: Operating cash flow - Capital expenditures
- Processing: MetricDuck automated filing analysis platform
Calculation Details
ROIC (Asset-Based):
ROIC = NOPAT / Invested Capital
Where:
- NOPAT = Operating Income × (1 - Tax Rate)
- Invested Capital = Total Assets - Current Liabilities - Excess Cash
Example Calculation: AppLovin Q3 2025 ROIC
- Operating Income (TTM): $3.29B
- Effective Tax Rate: 8.3%
- NOPAT: $3.29B × (1 - 0.083) = $3.02B
- Invested Capital: $4.03B (total assets minus current liabilities minus excess cash)
- ROIC: $3.02B ÷ $4.03B = 74.9% ≈ 75%
Cash Conversion Cycle:
CCC = DSO + DIO - DPO
Where:
- DSO = Days Sales Outstanding (82 days for APP)
- DIO = Days Inventory Outstanding (0 for APP - software/services)
- DPO = Days Payables Outstanding (142 days for APP)
- CCC = 82 + 0 - 142 = -60 days
Companies Analyzed
- AppLovin Corporation (APP) — CIK: 0001751008
- Unity Software Inc. (U) — CIK: 0001810806
- The Trade Desk, Inc. (TTD) — CIK: 0001671933
Limitations
This analysis has important limitations investors should understand:
-
ROIC methodology variance: Our asset-based ROIC calculation may differ from other sources using invested capital approaches (debt + equity - cash). Different methodologies can yield materially different results.
-
Unity's ROIC improvement context: Unity's ROIC improvement from -20% to -9% primarily reflects restructuring charges and asset impairments, not operational efficiency gains. The underlying business remains unprofitable.
-
AppLovin's revenue acceleration context: Revenue growth acceleration from +17% to +86% partially reflects easier year-over-year comparisons following the 2023 games portfolio divestiture.
-
TTD cash conversion cycle estimate: Trade Desk's CCC (~30 days) is estimated based on available data. Actual CCC may vary based on calculation methodology.
-
Qualitative factors excluded: This analysis focuses on quantitative metrics. Qualitative factors—management quality, competitive moat durability, regulatory risks, and macroeconomic sensitivity—are not fully captured.
Disclaimer
This analysis is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, and you should not rely on it as such.
Important considerations:
- Past performance does not guarantee future results
- Ad-tech companies face rapid technological change and competitive dynamics
- The author holds no positions in any of the stocks mentioned
- Always consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions
- Data is sourced from SEC filings, which may contain errors or be subject to restatement
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: MetricDuck provides financial analysis tools. This content demonstrates our analytical capabilities but should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any security.
Explore More ROIC Analysis
This article is part of our comprehensive ROIC Analysis Hub, which covers sector benchmarks, peer comparisons, and capital efficiency screening frameworks.
Related ROIC research:
- ROIC: The Complete Investor Guide — Sector benchmarks, formula, and screening framework
- ROIC Stock Screening Framework — 938-company benchmarks across 11 sectors
- Stock-Based Compensation Analysis — Tech dilution trends
- SaaS Segment Divergence — NOW, ADBE, CRM, INTU analysis
Last updated: December 30, 2025. Next update scheduled after Q4 2025 earnings (February 2026).
MetricDuck Research
CFA charterholders and former institutional equity analysts