PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FLUT vs. MSGS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends
Financials

Performance

FLUT vs. MSGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Flutter Entertainment PLC (FLUT) and Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. (MSGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLUT achieves a -53.17% return, which is significantly lower than MSGS's 47.23% return.


FLUT

1D
-1.26%
1M
-3.59%
YTD
-53.17%
6M
-52.45%
1Y
-59.16%
3Y*
-20.40%
5Y*
-11.75%
10Y*

MSGS

1D
-0.50%
1M
11.95%
YTD
47.23%
6M
70.36%
1Y
101.13%
3Y*
28.76%
5Y*
17.73%
10Y*
16.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLUT vs. MSGS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FLUT
Flutter Entertainment PLC
-53.17%-16.80%44.39%32.84%-14.44%-23.51%79.04%51.44%-32.00%23.91%
MSGS
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
47.23%14.61%24.12%-0.82%10.47%-5.63%23.03%9.90%26.96%-1.59%

Correlation

The correlation between FLUT and MSGS is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.18

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.26

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.21

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2017

0.15

The correlation between FLUT and MSGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.15 (all time) to 0.26 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Fundamentals

EPS

FLUT:

-$3.39

MSGS:

-$0.07

PS Ratio

FLUT:

0.79

MSGS:

8.52

Total Revenue (TTM)

FLUT:

$17.02B

MSGS:

$1.08B

Gross Profit (TTM)

FLUT:

$7.53B

MSGS:

$48.32M

EBITDA (TTM)

FLUT:

$1.32B

MSGS:

-$41.02M

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

FLUT vs. MSGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

FLUT
FLUT Risk / Return Rank: 44
Overall Rank
FLUT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLUT Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLUT Omega Ratio Rank: 22
Omega Ratio Rank
FLUT Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLUT Martin Ratio Rank: 77
Martin Ratio Rank

MSGS
MSGS Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
MSGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MSGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
MSGS Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
MSGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
MSGS Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

FLUT vs. MSGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Flutter Entertainment PLC (FLUT) and Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. (MSGS). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


FLUTMSGSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-4.83

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-7.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.71

1.64

-0.93

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.85

10.09

-10.93

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.43

24.05

-25.48

FLUT vs. MSGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLUT Sharpe Ratio is -1.38, which is lower than the MSGS Sharpe Ratio of 3.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLUT and MSGS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FLUTMSGSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-1.38

3.45

-4.83

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.27

0.70

-0.97

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.53

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.03

0.52

-0.49

Drawdowns

FLUT vs. MSGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLUT drawdown since its inception was -70.06%, which is greater than MSGS's maximum drawdown of -41.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLUT and MSGS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FLUTMSGSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-70.06%

-41.57%

-28.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-70.06%

-10.08%

-59.98%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-70.06%

-25.54%

-44.52%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-70.06%

-31.96%

-38.10%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.57%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-67.37%

-0.50%

-66.87%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-23.62%

-10.58%

-13.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

41.33%

4.22%

+37.11%

Volatility

FLUT vs. MSGS - Volatility Comparison

Flutter Entertainment PLC (FLUT) has a higher volatility of 14.29% compared to Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. (MSGS) at 7.21%. This indicates that FLUT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MSGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FLUTMSGSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

14.29%

7.21%

+7.08%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

33.53%

23.35%

+10.18%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

42.89%

29.52%

+13.37%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

44.23%

25.35%

+18.88%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

46.81%

31.44%

+15.37%

Dividends

FLUT vs. MSGS - Dividend Comparison

Neither FLUT nor MSGS has paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
FLUT
Flutter Entertainment PLC
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%3.75%
MSGS
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%3.82%0.00%36.97%0.00%

Financials

FLUT vs. MSGS - Financials Comparison

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Flutter Entertainment PLC and Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.


Quarterly
Annual

Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities


0.001.00B2.00B3.00B4.00B5.00BJulyOctober2022AprilJulyOctober2023AprilJulyOctober2024AprilJulyOctober2025AprilJulyOctober2026
4.30B
432.20M
(FLUT) Total Revenue
(MSGS) Total Revenue
Values in USD except per share items

FLUT vs. MSGS - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Flutter Entertainment PLC and Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

Gross Margin
Operating Margin
Net Margin
Quarterly
Annual

-20.0%0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%JulyOctober2022AprilJulyOctober2023AprilJulyOctober2024AprilJulyOctober2025AprilJulyOctober2026
42.7%
-28.1%
Portfolio components
FLUT - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Flutter Entertainment PLC reported a gross profit of 1.84B and revenue of 4.30B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 42.7%.

MSGS - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. reported a gross profit of -121.61M and revenue of 432.20M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was -28.1%.

FLUT - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Flutter Entertainment PLC reported an operating income of 79.00M and revenue of 4.30B, resulting in an operating margin of 1.8%.

MSGS - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. reported an operating income of 1.96M and revenue of 432.20M, resulting in an operating margin of 0.5%.

FLUT - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Flutter Entertainment PLC reported a net income of 218.00M and revenue of 4.30B, resulting in a net margin of 5.1%.

MSGS - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. reported a net income of 555.00K and revenue of 432.20M, resulting in a net margin of 0.1%.


Frequently Asked Questions


FLUT and MSGS have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FLUT has higher volatility (14.29%) compared to MSGS (7.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLUT dropped -70.06% vs MSGS's -41.57%.

MSGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.45 vs -1.38), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FLUT and MSGS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer