Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc (LFAP) against its publicly traded competitors: sales growth, net income, profitability, valuation and market share, plus each peer's market capitalization, revenue, income and employees. Free below: the top 5 peers. Subscriber access adds the full competitor list and CSV downloads.
Key Findings: Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 0M vs 479,852M combined for tracked competitors (0.0% combined share).
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.00M compares with $0.97M for the peer group (0.0x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc vs. its Competitors, Q3 2022
TTM net margin
TTM = trailing twelve months. Run-rate annualizes the latest quarter (×4) and compares it to TTM. In millions of $. High-Confidence Competitors are named as a competitor directly in an SEC filing; Similar-Size Competitors are the closest peers by market-cap rank within the same industry; Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors are the closest peers by combined revenue growth, operating margin and ROIC, all independent of the competitor list.
TTM revenue, latest-quarter run-rate and net income/margin benchmarked across Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Competitor Quality Breadth
Share of each group, trailing 12 months: profitable (net margin > 0), expanding (revenue growth > 0), growing faster than the industry's own median, and financially distressed (Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below).
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc | - | - | - | Yes |
| Competitors combined (11) |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Altman Z-Score is not shown here: it is not populated in the underlying data for any company. Percentages are of companies in each group that report the relevant metric, not of the full group size.
LFAP Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
5 Best-Performing Tracked Competitors, Trailing 12 Months
| # | Competitor | TTM Share Price Return | vs U.S.A. 500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fox Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Microsoft Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Walt Disney Co | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Netease Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Playstudios Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
With respect to digital publications and apps that we publish for smartphones and tablets, we compete with a continually increasing number of companies, including Meredith Publishing, WebMD and many well-funded private companies. We also compete for consumer spending with large companies, such as NIKE and Electronic Arts. In addition, given the open nature of the development and distribution for smartphones and tablets, we also compete or will compete with a vast number of small companies and individuals who are able to create and launch digital publications and apps and other content for these mobile devices utilizing relatively limited resources and with relatively limited start-up time or expertise. The proliferation of titles in these open developer channels makes it difficult for us to differentiate ourselves from other developers and to compete for end users who purchase content for their smartphones and tablets without substantially increasing spending to market our products or increasing our development costs.
Most of our competitors’ and our potential competitors’ advantages over us, either globally or in particular geographic markets, include the following:
significantly greater revenues and financial resources;
stronger brand and consumer recognition regionally or worldwide;
greater experience with the digital publications and apps business model;
the capacity to leverage their marketing expenditures across a broader portfolio
of mobile and non-mobile products;
larger installed customer bases from related platforms such as console gaming
or social networking websites to which they can market and sell mobile games;
more substantial intellectual property of their own from which they can develop
games without having to pay royalties;
lower labor and development costs and better overall economies of scale;
greater resources to make acquisitions;
greater platform-specific focus, experience and expertise; and
broader global distribution and presence.
Publicly Traded Peers of Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc | 0.12 | 0.00 |
| Microsoft Corporation | 3,795,216.66 | 331,839.00 |
| Walt Disney Co | 184,235.10 | 98,861.00 |
| Netease Inc | 77,905.56 | 16,104.33 |
| Activision Blizzard inc | 74,969.48 | 8,706.00 |
| Electronic Arts Inc | 53,263.80 | 7,846.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 4,217,651.58 | 482,844.53 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc .
Sources: Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's official press releases and regulatory filings; CSIMarket.com's market research; and the financial filings and press releases of the other companies cited.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Business Segment Mix vs Peers
Revenue by operating segment or division, as named and reported by each company. Segment names are the filer's own and are not standardized across companies. Do not assume a same-named or similarly-named segment is defined identically between two companies. Shares are of each company's own total revenue and are not required to sum to 100% (intersegment revenue, unallocated items).| Company | Largest Segment |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Corporation | Productivity and Business Processes 42.19 % |
| Activision Blizzard inc | Activision 38.24 % |
| Fox Corporation | Television 55.01 % |
| Meredith Corporation | Magazine 43.06 % |
| Playstudios Inc | Play Games 99.03 % |
Source: operating segment revenue as reported in each company's SEC filings (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API, leaf-level reportable segments only (parent roll-up segments are excluded where sub-segments are separately disclosed).
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Productivity vs Peers Comparison
Revenue and income per employee, trailing 12 months, in $; market cap in millions of $| Company | Market Cap | Revenue / Employee | Income / Employee |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc | 0 | 2,166 | -2,805,583 |
| Microsoft Corporation | 3,795,217 | 1,488,067 | 599,771 |
| Walt Disney Co | 184,235 | 427,970 | 39,983 |
| Netease Inc | 77,906 | 1,789,369,889 | 552,890,667 |
| Activision Blizzard inc | 74,969 | 621,857 | 154,643 |
| Electronic Arts Inc | 53,264 | 541,103 | 74,690 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 4,217,651 | 970,967 | 307,974 |
Sign in to see all peers for Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc .
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Geographic Revenue Exposure vs Peers
Revenue by country/region as reported in each company's most recent filing. Disclosure granularity varies by filer (some report by country, others by broad region) and is shown as disclosed.| Company | Largest Market |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Corporation | US 51.47 % |
| Activision Blizzard inc | Asia Pacific 12.19 % |
| Playstudios Inc | United States 81.80 % |
Source: revenue geography as reported in each company's SEC filings (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API. Percentages are of that company's own total consolidated revenue for its most recent reported period.
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Cloud Computing & Data Analytics industry average (203 companies, excluding loss-making/negative-equity outliers), alongside returns on capital for context on whether a premium or discount lines up with measurably stronger or weaker returns.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 27.6x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 16.4x | - |
| P/B | -2.6x | 4.0x | -6.5x |
| Return on Equity | 155.39 % | industry aggregate | 144.98 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 28.47 % | 1.95 % (avg) | 26.52 % |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. A valuation premium or discount is not, by itself, a judgment of over- or under-valuation. Compare it against the return and growth context shown elsewhere on this page.
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 91.46 % | -74.39 % | -87.05 % | -68.54 % | - | - |
| Operating Margin | -136.80 % | -372.94 % | -2,204.95 % | -6,771.03 % | - | - |
| Return on Invested Capital | 1,459.11 % | 45.06 % | 22.93 % | 16.68 % | 39.17 % | 141.28 % |
| P/E | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Source: CSIMarket API, fiscal-year figures. P/E is this company's own historical ratio at each fiscal year end and can swing sharply around an earnings trough: that is real, not a data error.
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's SWOT
Every point below is a fixed rule applied to a metric already shown elsewhere on this page (Market Structure, Profitability, Valuation, Run-Rate, Stock Performance, Quality Breadth) not an independent strategic assessment. A blank quadrant means no rule was met, not that none apply.Strengths
- Return on equity 145.0 points above the industry aggregate.
Weaknesses
- Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below, the standard financial-distress signal.
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-35.7% annualized).
Methodology: mechanical, rule-based SWOT. Each bullet reuses a figure already sourced and cited elsewhere on this page; nothing here is generated narrative or independent analyst judgment.
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Financial Strength vs Peers Comparison
Quick ratio, working capital, debt to equity and asset turnover, trailing 12 months| Company | Quick Ratio | Working Capital | Debt / Equity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc | 0.00 | 0.01 | - |
| Microsoft Corporation | 0.13 | 1.31 | 0.11 |
| Walt Disney Co | 0.16 | 0.70 | 0.38 |
| Netease Inc | 0.90 | 3.45 | 0.04 |
| Activision Blizzard inc | 2.91 | 4.81 | 0.18 |
| Electronic Arts Inc | 0.26 | 1.00 | 0.26 |
Sign in to see all peers for Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc .
Quick ratio = cash / current liabilities; working capital ratio = current assets / current liabilities; asset turnover = revenue / total assets. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Revenue and Income Growth vs Peers
Quarterly revenue and net income growth, year over year and quarter over quarter| Company | Period | Revenue Y/Y | Income Y/Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc | Q3 2022 | - | - |
| Microsoft Corporation | Q2 2026 | +17.7 % | +31.3 % |
| Walt Disney Co | Q2 2026 | +6.8 % | -52.1 % |
| Netease Inc | Q4 2025 | +11.6 % | +20.0 % |
| Activision Blizzard inc | Q2 2023 | +34.2 % | +109.6 % |
| Electronic Arts Inc | Q2 2026 | +18.9 % | +97.5 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +14.1 % | +17.2 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc .
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Peers' Costs of Sales and Capital Expenditures
Context for revenue growth: peer costs and capex, year over year and quarter over quarter| Company | Period | Costs Y/Y | Capex Y/Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc | Q3 2022 | - | - |
| Microsoft Corporation | Q2 2026 | +22.9 % | +109.6 % |
| Walt Disney Co | Q2 2026 | - | +0.8 % |
| Netease Inc | Q4 2025 | +6.3 % | +10.7 % |
| Activision Blizzard inc | Q2 2023 | +45.0 % | -37.8 % |
| Electronic Arts Inc | Q2 2026 | -1.8 % | +5.6 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc .
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc | - | - | - |
| Microsoft Corporation | 19.76% | 22.48% | 34.22% |
| Walt Disney Co | 4.59% | 5.45% | 8.01% |
| Netease Inc | 15.72% | 20.57% | 21.71% |
| Activision Blizzard inc | 7.95% | 8.93% | 10.97% |
| Electronic Arts Inc | 8.68% | 11.03% | 16.52% |
Sign in to see all peers for Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc .
ROA = net income / total assets; ROI = net income / investments; ROE = net income / equity; turnover ratios use trailing 12 month revenue (receivables) and cost of sales (inventory).
Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc | - | 28.12 |
| Microsoft Corporation | 28.37 | 11.44 |
| Walt Disney Co | 21.79 | 1.86 |
| Netease Inc | 16.14 | 4.84 |
| Activision Blizzard inc | 34.59 | 8.61 |
| Electronic Arts Inc | 49.11 | 6.79 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 27.54 | 8.74 |
Sign in to see all peers for Lgbtq Loyalty Holdings Inc .
P/E = price / diluted EPS (trailing 12 months); PEG = P/E divided by EPS growth; the average row divides the peers' combined market cap by their combined income, sales, cash flow and equity.