This comprehensive analysis of Mogo Inc. (MOGO) delves into its core fundamentals, evaluating its business moat, financial statements, past performance, future growth potential, and fair value. To provide a complete picture, the report benchmarks MOGO against key competitors like Nuvei Corporation (NVEI), SoFi Technologies, Inc. (SOFI), and Dave Inc., while framing insights through the investment principles of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.
Negative. Mogo's business lacks a competitive edge and is pivoting away from its struggling consumer app. The company is financially weak, with consistent operating losses and high debt. Its past performance shows a history of unprofitability and significant stock price declines. Future growth is highly speculative, relying entirely on its small B2B payments subsidiary. While the stock trades below its asset value, its core operations consistently burn cash. This is a high-risk stock to avoid until a clear path to profitability emerges.
CAN: TSX
Mogo Inc. operates a dual-pronged business model that is currently in a state of transition. Historically, its primary focus was a consumer-facing digital finance application in Canada, offering services like commission-free stock trading, cryptocurrency investing, and a prepaid Visa card. This segment aimed to create an all-in-one financial hub, generating revenue from transaction fees and subscriptions. However, this consumer business has struggled to gain meaningful traction or market share against dominant, well-funded competitors like Wealthsimple, which has captured the target demographic with a superior product and brand.
The second, and now primary, part of Mogo's business is its B2B payment processing subsidiary, Carta Worldwide. Carta provides modern card issuing and program management services for other fintech companies and businesses looking to offer payment cards. This division generates revenue through processing fees and other platform services. Recognizing the challenges in the consumer market, Mogo's management has explicitly shifted its strategy to prioritize the growth of Carta. This pivot transforms Mogo into a B2B infrastructure play, but it enters a highly competitive field populated by global giants like Nuvei and specialized players like Paysafe.
Mogo's competitive moat is exceptionally weak, bordering on non-existent. In the Canadian consumer market, it has failed to build any significant competitive advantage. Its brand recognition is extremely low compared to Wealthsimple, switching costs are nil for users, and it has no network effects or scale advantages. On the B2B side with Carta, its moat is also shallow. While it may have specific customer relationships, it lacks the scale, technological superiority, or network effects of larger payment processors. Competitors like Nuvei have vast economies of scale, higher switching costs due to deep enterprise integrations, and a global footprint that Mogo cannot match.
Ultimately, Mogo's business model appears fragile and lacks resilience. The company failed to build a defensible position in its initial consumer market and is now attempting a turnaround by focusing on a B2B segment where it is a very small player. Its lack of scale prevents it from achieving the operating leverage necessary for profitability, as evidenced by its persistent negative margins. The business is highly vulnerable to competitive pressures and its long-term durability is in serious doubt without a significant, successful scaling of the Carta business against formidable odds.
A detailed look at Mogo's financial statements reveals a company struggling with profitability and cash generation. Revenue growth has been inconsistent, but more importantly, the company's cost structure is unsustainable. Operating margins have been persistently negative, sitting at -18.75% in the most recent quarter and -34.27% for the last full year. This indicates that the core business operations are not profitable, spending more on expenses than is generated in revenue before even accounting for interest on its significant debt.
The balance sheet presents another major red flag. With total debt of $84.48 million slightly exceeding total common equity of $77.46 million, the company's leverage is high for a business that is not generating cash. The debt-to-equity ratio of 1.09 is a significant risk, as it limits financial flexibility and amplifies potential losses for shareholders. While the current ratio appears strong at 5.08, suggesting ample short-term assets to cover liabilities, this is overshadowed by the high debt load and a large proportion of intangible assets on the books.
From a cash flow perspective, Mogo is not self-sustaining. The company reported negative operating cash flow of -$3.04 million in its latest quarter and -$1.27 million for the last fiscal year. This cash burn forces the company to rely on other sources, such as financing or one-time asset sales (like the one that produced a profit in Q2 2025), to fund its operations. This is not a sustainable long-term strategy. In summary, Mogo's financial foundation appears risky, defined by operational losses, a heavy debt burden, and an inability to generate cash from its core business.
An analysis of Mogo Inc.'s past performance over the last five fiscal years (FY 2020–FY 2024) reveals a company struggling with fundamental execution and financial stability. The historical record shows a pattern of inconsistent growth, significant unprofitability, and high cash burn, which raises serious questions about the viability and resilience of its business model, especially when benchmarked against competitors in the fintech space.
On growth and scalability, Mogo's record is poor. While revenue grew from CAD 22.58 million in 2020 to CAD 42.08 million in 2024, the path was extremely volatile. A massive 80.56% jump in 2021 was followed by a sharp deceleration and even a contraction, with growth rates of 10.61%, -8.05%, and 1.46% in the following years. More importantly, this top-line growth has never translated into bottom-line success. Earnings per share have been deeply negative every single year, from -1.40 in 2020 to -0.56 in 2024, demonstrating a complete lack of operating leverage and a failure to scale profitably.
Profitability has been nonexistent. Operating margins have been consistently and severely negative, ranging from -34.27% to a staggering -109.7% over the period. Similarly, return on equity has been abysmal, with figures like -87.05% in 2022 and -15.64% in 2024, indicating significant value destruction for shareholders. Cash flow reliability is also a major concern. Outside of a single positive year in 2020, the company has consistently generated negative free cash flow, including -31.55 million in 2021 and -9.38 million in 2023. This means the business does not generate enough cash from its operations to sustain itself, relying instead on external financing or cash reserves.
From a shareholder return perspective, the performance has been disastrous. While the company has conducted minor share buybacks, these have been overshadowed by massive shareholder dilution in prior years and a collapse in market capitalization from a peak of over CAD 304 million in 2021 to around CAD 42 million today. In conclusion, Mogo's historical record does not support confidence in its execution. Compared to industry peers like SoFi, which is growing rapidly and has reached profitability, or Nuvei, a large-scale profitable operator, Mogo's past performance is that of a struggling micro-cap company with no clear history of success.
The following analysis of Mogo's growth potential adopts a forward-looking window through fiscal year 2028 (FY2028). As a micro-cap company, detailed analyst consensus forecasts for Mogo are unavailable. Therefore, projections and scenarios are based on an independent model derived from the company's recent financial performance, management commentary which emphasizes the Carta B2B platform, and competitive positioning. Key metrics such as EPS CAGR 2025–2028 and Revenue CAGR 2025-2028 are not available from consensus sources and are modeled based on stated strategic priorities. All financial figures are presented in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted, consistent with the company's reporting.
Mogo's primary growth driver is its B2B payment processing subsidiary, Carta Worldwide. Having failed to gain traction with its consumer-facing financial app, the company's survival and growth now depend on scaling this 'Platform-as-a-Service' offering. Success requires winning new enterprise clients who wish to launch modern card programs, a market with significant potential but also intense competition. A secondary factor is cost management; given the company's history of significant operating losses and cash burn (negative free cash flow), achieving operating leverage where Carta's revenue growth outpaces corporate overhead is critical for long-term viability. The consumer division, once the core of the strategy, is no longer considered a meaningful growth driver.
Compared to its peers, Mogo is positioned very weakly for future growth. In its target consumer market, it has been completely overshadowed by Wealthsimple, which boasts over 3 million users and a dominant brand in Canada. On the B2B payments side, Carta is a minuscule player compared to global giants like Nuvei (~$1.26B TTM revenue) and Paysafe (~$1.6B TTM revenue), which have immense scale, established client relationships, and far greater resources. The key risk for Mogo is execution failure; it must scale Carta rapidly with limited capital in a market where its competitors are larger and better funded. The risk of continued cash burn leading to further dilutive financing or insolvency is substantial.
In the near-term, over the next 1 year (FY2025) and 3 years (through FY2027), Mogo's performance will be dictated by Carta's client acquisition. Our normal case model assumes Revenue growth next 12 months: +12% and Revenue CAGR 2025–2027: +15%, driven entirely by Carta. Continued losses are expected, with EPS next 3 years remaining negative. The single most sensitive variable is Carta's revenue growth. A 10% slowdown in this rate would result in a Revenue CAGR closer to +5%, accelerating cash burn. A bull case (e.g., landing a major client) could see growth exceed +30%, while a bear case (losing a client or failing to sign new ones) could see revenue stagnate or decline. Our assumptions are: (1) Carta grows revenue at 15% annually, (2) the legacy consumer business revenue is flat, and (3) operating expenses grow at a slower 5% rate. The likelihood of the normal case is moderate, with significant downside risk.
Over the long-term, from a 5-year (through FY2029) to a 10-year (through FY2034) perspective, Mogo's existence as a going concern is uncertain. The bull case requires Carta to successfully capture a defensible niche in the payments market, leading to a Revenue CAGR 2025–2030 of +20% and eventual profitability. A more realistic normal case would see Revenue CAGR 2025–2030 of ~10-12%, with the company struggling to achieve the scale needed for meaningful, sustainable free cash flow, resulting in a low Long-run ROIC. The bear case is that the company is unable to compete and is either acquired for its technology at a low price or ceases operations. The key long-term sensitivity is achieving operating leverage. If operating expenses continue to consume over 90% of gross profit, the company will never achieve sustainable profitability. Long-term prospects are weak.
As of November 14, 2025, with a closing price of $1.77, a deep dive into Mogo Inc.'s valuation reveals a significant disconnect between its asset-based metrics and its operational profitability. The company's performance in this category is complex, suggesting a classic "value trap" scenario where low multiples may not signal a true bargain. A triangulated valuation approach is necessary to understand the conflicting signals.
The most striking multiple is the Price-to-Book (P/B) ratio of 0.54, based on a book value per share of $3.25. This suggests investors can buy the company's assets for about half of their stated value on the balance sheet. However, a significant portion of these assets consists of goodwill ($38.36M) and other intangibles ($26.96M). When considering the Price-to-Tangible-Book-Value (P/TBV), the stock trades at approximately 3.47x its tangible book value per share of $0.51, which is not cheap. The trailing P/E ratio of 5.7 is distorted by a $9.83M gain on the sale of investments in Q2 2025 and should be disregarded. The Forward P/E is 0, indicating analysts expect losses. A more reliable metric for an unprofitable growth company is the Price-to-Sales (P/S) ratio, which stands at 1.04 based on trailing-twelve-month revenue of $40.49M. Compared to the broader fintech industry, where P/S multiples can range from 3.0x to over 10.0x for high-growth firms, Mogo's ratio appears low. Applying a conservative P/S multiple of 1.5x to 2.0x—given its inconsistent growth and lack of profits—yields a fair value range of approximately $2.55 to $3.40 per share.
This approach is not favorable for Mogo. The company has a history of negative free cash flow (FCF), with a negative TTM FCF. Consequently, its FCF yield is also negative, indicating that the business is consuming cash rather than generating it for shareholders. As Mogo does not pay a dividend, valuation methods based on shareholder returns like the Dividend Discount Model are not applicable. The negative cash flow is a significant risk factor that justifies a lower valuation multiple compared to cash-generative peers. The company holds total assets of $178.94M and total common equity of $77.46M as of the latest quarter. The market is currently valuing the entire company at only $42.09M. This deep discount suggests that investors are either questioning the carrying value of the assets (such as goodwill, intangible assets, and loans receivable) or they believe the company will continue to burn through its equity with operational losses. The fair value from an asset perspective could range from its tangible book value of $0.51 per share to its full book value of $3.25 per share. The wide range reflects the high degree of uncertainty associated with the quality and future earning power of these assets.
Warren Buffett would view Mogo Inc. as a business that falls far outside his circle of competence and fails every one of his key investment tests. He seeks companies with durable competitive advantages, predictable earnings, and strong cash flows, none of which Mogo possesses. The company's history of unprofitability, negative cash flow, and a weak competitive position against rivals like Wealthsimple and Nuvei would be significant red flags. With consistently negative margins and a business that burns cash to operate, Mogo represents a speculative turnaround, a category Buffett famously avoids. For retail investors, the key takeaway is that a low stock price does not signify value; in this case, it reflects fundamental business risks that a conservative, value-oriented investor would find unacceptable.
Charlie Munger would view Mogo as a textbook example of a business to avoid, fundamentally clashing with his philosophy of buying wonderful companies at fair prices. The company consistently burns cash, has a weak balance sheet with net debt, and lacks any discernible competitive moat against dominant rivals like Wealthsimple in consumer finance or Nuvei in payments. While the stock's low price-to-sales ratio of under 1x might seem cheap, Munger would see it as a clear indicator of a broken business model, not a value opportunity. For retail investors, the Munger takeaway is clear: avoid low-quality, speculative businesses where the risk of permanent capital loss is high, regardless of the price.
In 2025, Bill Ackman would view Mogo Inc. as fundamentally un-investable, as it fails every test of his investment philosophy which prioritizes simple, predictable, free-cash-flow-generative businesses. Mogo's consistent unprofitability, negative cash flow, and precarious financial position with net debt of ~$80M on only ~$63M in revenue stand in stark contrast to Ackman's preference for high-quality enterprises. The company lacks a competitive moat in either its consumer-facing app, which is dwarfed by competitors like Wealthsimple, or its B2B payments segment, which is a micro-cap player against giants like Nuvei. For retail investors, the key takeaway is that Mogo is a speculative, high-risk venture lacking the durable business characteristics and clear path to value that a top-tier investor like Ackman would demand. Ackman would only reconsider if Mogo sold off its failing consumer assets and its remaining Carta business demonstrated a clear and profitable niche with high margins, a scenario that appears highly unlikely.
Mogo Inc. presents a complex picture for investors, standing at the intersection of digital payments, cryptocurrency, and wealth management. The company has undergone a significant transformation, moving away from its origins as a digital lender towards a broader fintech platform model. This strategic pivot was largely driven by its acquisition of Carta Worldwide, a digital payments solutions provider that now forms the backbone of its revenue. This B2B (business-to-business) segment offers payment processing services to other companies and is Mogo's most viable asset, providing a steady, albeit slow-growing, stream of subscription and transaction-based income.
In contrast, Mogo's consumer-facing applications, including its crypto trading and commission-free stock trading app, MogoTrade, face an uphill battle. The Canadian market for these services is dominated by a few key players with massive user bases, strong brand recognition, and deep marketing budgets, such as Wealthsimple and Questrade. Mogo's app has failed to capture significant market share or establish a strong brand identity, making it a secondary, less compelling part of the overall business. This dual-identity—a functional B2B payments engine paired with a struggling B2C (business-to-consumer) app—creates strategic uncertainty and pulls focus and resources in different directions.
The company's financial profile reflects these challenges. While the Carta acquisition provides recurring revenue, the overall business has struggled to achieve profitability and consistently burns through cash. As a micro-cap stock, its access to capital is more limited and expensive compared to its larger rivals. This financial fragility means Mogo has less room for error and a shorter runway to prove its business model can scale profitably. Investors are therefore weighing the potential of its payments technology against the significant competitive and financial headwinds it faces in its quest to build a comprehensive fintech ecosystem.
Nuvei Corporation is a global payment technology giant, making it an aspirational peer for Mogo's much smaller payments division, Carta. While both operate in the payment processing space, Nuvei's scale is orders of magnitude larger, with a diversified global presence, enterprise-level clients, and a far more comprehensive suite of services. Mogo's Carta is a niche player focused on program management for modern card issuers, whereas Nuvei provides a full-stack solution encompassing everything from online checkout to payment orchestration. This comparison highlights the vast gap in scale, resources, and market position between an industry leader and a micro-cap participant.
Nuvei's business moat is significantly wider and deeper than Mogo's. Its brand is recognized globally in the payments industry, attracting large enterprise clients. Switching costs are high for its customers, who integrate Nuvei's complex systems deep into their operations ($42.9B in Q1 2024 total volume). Its massive scale provides significant operating leverage and data advantages. Nuvei benefits from network effects, as more merchants and payment methods on its platform make it more valuable. In contrast, Mogo's Carta has a weaker brand, lower switching costs for its smaller clients, and minimal scale or network effects. Both face similar regulatory barriers in the payments space, but Nuvei's resources to navigate them are far superior. Winner: Nuvei Corporation due to its immense scale, high switching costs, and established global brand.
From a financial standpoint, Nuvei is vastly superior. Its revenue growth is robust, with TTM revenue at ~$1.26B compared to Mogo's ~$63M. Nuvei generates positive and strong margins, with an adjusted EBITDA margin often in the 30-40% range, while Mogo's is consistently negative. Nuvei has a strong balance sheet and generates significant Free Cash Flow (FCF), allowing for reinvestment and acquisitions. Mogo, on the other hand, has a weaker balance sheet with ~$80M in net debt and consistently negative FCF, indicating it burns cash to operate. Nuvei's liquidity and leverage ratios are managed for growth, while Mogo's reflect a struggle for survival. Overall Financials winner: Nuvei Corporation due to its profitability, cash generation, and fortress-like financial position.
Historically, Nuvei's performance has eclipsed Mogo's. Over the past 3 years, Nuvei achieved significant revenue CAGR, while Mogo's growth has been lumpy and acquisition-driven. Nuvei's margins have remained strong, whereas Mogo's have been persistently negative. In terms of Total Shareholder Return (TSR), both stocks have performed poorly since their post-IPO peaks, but Nuvei's underlying business performance has been far more stable. From a risk perspective, Nuvei is a large, established company, while Mogo is a speculative micro-cap with significant volatility (beta over 2.0) and going-concern risks noted in its financials. Overall Past Performance winner: Nuvei Corporation for its consistent operational execution and superior financial track record.
Looking ahead, Nuvei's future growth is driven by its expansion into new geographies, high-growth verticals like gaming and e-commerce, and acquisitions. Its large Total Addressable Market (TAM) and ability to win enterprise clients give it a clear runway. Mogo's growth is almost entirely dependent on scaling its Carta business, as its consumer app shows little promise. Nuvei has superior pricing power and cost efficiency due to its scale. While both face regulatory tailwinds from the digitization of payments, Nuvei is far better positioned to capitalize on them. Overall Growth outlook winner: Nuvei Corporation given its multiple growth levers and proven ability to execute.
In terms of valuation, the comparison is difficult due to the vast difference in quality. Nuvei trades at a forward EV/EBITDA multiple around 8-10x, reflecting its profitability. Mogo has a negative EBITDA, so such a metric is not meaningful; it trades on a Price/Sales ratio of less than 1x, which is typical for distressed or deeply speculative companies. While Nuvei's valuation is higher on an absolute basis, it is justified by its superior growth, profitability, and market leadership. Mogo may appear 'cheaper' on a sales multiple, but this reflects immense risk and a lack of profitability. Winner: Nuvei Corporation is the better investment, as its premium valuation is backed by strong fundamentals, making it a higher-quality asset despite the higher price.
Winner: Nuvei Corporation over Mogo Inc. Nuvei is unequivocally the stronger company, operating on a different level entirely. Its key strengths are its massive scale ($1.26B TTM revenue vs. Mogo's $63M), consistent profitability (positive EBITDA vs. Mogo's negative), and a deep competitive moat built on technology and enterprise relationships. Mogo's primary weakness is its financial instability, with negative cash flow and a dependency on its small payments subsidiary. The primary risk for Mogo is its inability to compete and achieve profitability before its cash reserves are depleted, making this comparison one of a market leader versus a fringe player.
SoFi Technologies is a leading US-based digital personal finance company, offering a comprehensive suite of products including lending, banking, and investing. It serves as a prime example of what Mogo's consumer-facing business aspires to be. While Mogo offers a fragmented collection of services in Canada (trading, crypto), SoFi provides a fully integrated 'financial operating system' for its members in the US. The comparison highlights the critical importance of scale, product integration, and brand building in the consumer fintech space, areas where SoFi excels and Mogo lags significantly.
SoFi's moat is built on brand recognition among its target demographic (high-earning millennials), a growing network effect from its integrated product suite (members using one product are likely to adopt others, lowering acquisition costs), and significant scale with over 8 million members. Switching costs are rising as more users adopt SoFi as their primary bank. As a chartered bank, SoFi also has regulatory barriers that provide a funding cost advantage. Mogo's consumer brand is weak in Canada, its product suite is not integrated, and its user base is tiny in comparison (under 100k active trading users). It has minimal network effects or switching costs. Winner: SoFi Technologies, Inc. for its powerful brand, integrated ecosystem, and significant scale advantages.
Financially, SoFi is in a different league. Its revenue growth is explosive, with TTM revenue exceeding $2.2B and growing at 25%+ year-over-year. Mogo's revenue is ~$63M and has shown slower, more inconsistent growth. SoFi recently achieved GAAP profitability, a major milestone that Mogo is nowhere near. SoFi's net interest margin (NIM) from its lending and banking business is a powerful profit driver that Mogo lacks. SoFi's balance sheet is robust, supported by a large deposit base from its bank charter, giving it superior liquidity. Mogo's balance sheet is weak, and it relies on external financing. Overall Financials winner: SoFi Technologies, Inc. based on its rapid growth, achievement of profitability, and strong funding base.
SoFi's past performance demonstrates a clear trajectory of hyper-growth. Its revenue CAGR over the last 3 years has been exceptional, driven by member acquisition and product adoption. While its stock TSR has been volatile, its operational metrics have consistently improved. Mogo's performance has been stagnant, with its stock price declining over 90% in the same period. From a risk perspective, SoFi's key risk is credit performance in its loan book, but it has a strong track record. Mogo's risk is existential—its ability to continue as a going concern given its cash burn. Overall Past Performance winner: SoFi Technologies, Inc. for its incredible operational growth and superior execution.
SoFi's future growth prospects are bright, driven by cross-selling more products to its large and growing member base, expanding its financial services offerings, and leveraging its bank charter for better margins. Its TAM in the US financial services market is enormous. Mogo's growth outlook is murky, relying heavily on the niche Carta business. SoFi has demonstrated pricing power and is achieving operating leverage. Mogo has little to no pricing power. Both benefit from the regulatory tailwind of digital finance adoption, but SoFi is a primary beneficiary. Overall Growth outlook winner: SoFi Technologies, Inc. due to its massive market opportunity and proven cross-selling engine.
Valuation-wise, SoFi trades at a premium based on its growth. Its Price/Sales ratio is around 2.5-3.0x, which is significantly higher than Mogo's sub-1x multiple. However, this is justified by SoFi's 25%+ revenue growth and clear path to sustained profitability. Mogo's low multiple reflects its low growth and high-risk profile. An investor in SoFi is paying for a high-growth, market-disrupting story that is executing well. An investor in Mogo is making a speculative bet on a turnaround. Winner: SoFi Technologies, Inc. is the better value on a risk-adjusted basis, as its premium is warranted by its superior business model and growth.
Winner: SoFi Technologies, Inc. over Mogo Inc. SoFi is fundamentally superior in every meaningful way for a consumer fintech company. Its key strengths are its powerful brand, integrated product ecosystem driving low-cost user acquisition, and a robust financial model that has reached profitability at a multi-billion-dollar revenue scale. Mogo's weaknesses are its lack of a competitive consumer offering, its fragmented strategy, and its precarious financial position with consistent losses. SoFi represents a successful execution of the strategy Mogo is attempting, making Mogo's path to success appear exceedingly difficult in comparison.
Wealthsimple is arguably Mogo's most direct and formidable competitor in the Canadian consumer fintech market. As a private company, its detailed financials are not public, but its strategic dominance is clear. Wealthsimple offers a fully integrated platform for stock trading, crypto, and managed investing that is user-friendly and has captured the Canadian millennial and Gen Z market. This comparison is stark, showing a market leader with a beloved brand versus a competitor struggling for relevance and market share.
Wealthsimple has built a powerful business moat. Its brand is one of the strongest in Canadian finance, synonymous with accessible, low-cost investing. It has significant scale with a reported 3 million+ clients and over $30 billion in assets under administration (AUA). This creates a budding network effect, as its brand recognition drives organic, word-of-mouth growth. Switching costs are moderate, as transferring investment accounts can be cumbersome. Mogo's brand has very low recognition, its user base is a fraction of Wealthsimple's, and it has no network effects. Both face the same regulatory barriers under IIROC, but Wealthsimple's scale gives it a massive advantage in compliance and lobbying. Winner: Wealthsimple due to its dominant brand, massive user base, and superior scale.
While detailed financial statements are unavailable, Wealthsimple's financial position is demonstrably stronger. It is backed by major venture capital firms and has raised hundreds of millions of dollars, giving it a massive war chest for marketing and product development. Its last funding round valued it at C$5 billion. This allows it to sustain losses in pursuit of growth, a luxury Mogo, with its ~$25M market cap, does not have. Wealthsimple's revenue growth is known to be rapid, driven by its massive user acquisition. Mogo's revenue is smaller and grows more slowly. Wealthsimple generates substantial revenue from its premium services and investment management fees, while Mogo's consumer app revenue is negligible. Overall Financials winner: Wealthsimple due to its vast access to capital and high-growth trajectory.
Wealthsimple's past performance has been one of meteoric growth, establishing itself as the undisputed leader in Canadian digital wealth management since its founding in 2014. It effectively created the market that Mogo is now trying to enter. Its user growth CAGR has been phenomenal. Mogo's performance over the same period has been defined by strategic pivots and a languishing stock price. In terms of risk, Wealthsimple's risk is related to market downturns impacting AUA and future profitability. Mogo's risk is its very survival. Overall Past Performance winner: Wealthsimple for its incredible success in capturing the Canadian market.
Wealthsimple's future growth drivers are clear: converting its massive base of free trading users into paying subscribers for premium services, launching new products like mortgages and banking, and continuing to take market share from traditional Canadian banks. Its TAM is the entire Canadian retail investment and banking market. Mogo's future growth in this segment is highly speculative and depends on finding a niche that Wealthsimple has somehow missed, which seems unlikely. Wealthsimple has immense pricing power with its premium tiers and a large, engaged user base. Overall Growth outlook winner: Wealthsimple for its dominant market position and clear pathways to monetization.
Valuation is a direct comparison between a highly-valued private growth company and a distressed public micro-cap. Wealthsimple's C$5 billion valuation from its 2021 funding round reflects investor confidence in its long-term dominance, translating to a very high revenue multiple. Mogo trades at less than 1x sales. This is a classic case of quality vs. price. Wealthsimple commands a premium because it is the clear winner in its market. Mogo is cheap because its future is uncertain. Winner: Wealthsimple, as its high valuation is a reflection of its success and market leadership, making it a more fundamentally sound long-term bet.
Winner: Wealthsimple over Mogo Inc. Wealthsimple is the dominant force in Canadian consumer fintech, and Mogo is a minor participant. Wealthsimple's strengths are its powerful and trusted brand, its huge and loyal user base (3M+ vs. Mogo's ~100k), and its massive financial backing. Mogo's primary weakness is its inability to differentiate its consumer offering in a market controlled by Wealthsimple. The key risk for Mogo is continued market share irrelevance and the inability to fund a competitive product. Wealthsimple has already won the race that Mogo is just beginning to run.
Dave Inc. is a US-based neobank focused on helping Americans with their short-term financial needs through cash advances, budgeting tools, and side-hustle job boards. It's a useful peer for Mogo because, like Mogo, it is a small-cap fintech company that is not yet profitable and targets a specific consumer niche. However, Dave has achieved significantly greater scale in its user base and has a clearer, more focused product offering compared to Mogo's fragmented strategy.
Dave's business moat is based on its brand as a financial friend to the underbanked, offering an alternative to predatory payday loans. Its primary product, 'ExtraCash', has attracted a large user base of over 10 million registered members. This scale provides a data advantage for underwriting its small advances. It has a modest network effect, as brand trust grows. Switching costs are low. In comparison, Mogo's consumer brand is weak, and its product lacks a clear, compelling value proposition to a specific audience. Mogo's scale is far smaller. Both face regulatory scrutiny, particularly Dave in the cash advance space. Winner: Dave Inc. for its focused brand identity and significantly larger user base.
Financially, Dave is larger and growing faster than Mogo. Dave's TTM revenue is ~$250M, roughly four times Mogo's, with a strong year-over-year growth rate (25%+). While neither company is profitable on a GAAP basis, Dave has a clearer path to profitability through scaling its user base and cross-selling higher-margin products. Its gross margins are healthier than Mogo's. Dave's balance sheet carries debt, similar to Mogo's, but its larger revenue base and access to US capital markets provide better liquidity. Both companies burn cash, but Dave's cash burn is in service of a proven and rapidly growing product. Overall Financials winner: Dave Inc. due to its superior scale, higher growth rate, and more promising path to profitability.
Looking at past performance, Dave has successfully scaled its user base and revenue since going public via a SPAC in 2022. While its TSR has been extremely poor, its operational metrics have consistently improved. Mogo's operational performance has been stagnant, and its stock performance has been similarly dismal. Dave's revenue CAGR is strong, whereas Mogo's is weak and inconsistent. From a risk standpoint, both are high-risk, unprofitable fintechs. However, Dave's primary risk is achieving profitability before its funding runs out, while Mogo faces the additional risk of a flawed, unfocused strategy. Overall Past Performance winner: Dave Inc. for its superior operational execution and user growth.
Dave's future growth is centered on monetizing its 10 million+ member base by cross-selling banking products, credit-building tools, and other financial services. Its large, established user base is a significant asset. Mogo lacks this user base, making its future growth prospects in the consumer space highly speculative. Dave's focused product roadmap gives it a clearer edge. The TAM for financial services for the underbanked in the US is substantial. Overall Growth outlook winner: Dave Inc. because it has already built the audience it now needs to monetize.
In terms of fair value, both companies trade at low Price/Sales multiples (both often below 1.0x) reflecting their unprofitability and high-risk profiles. Both are 'cheap' for a reason. However, Dave's multiple is applied to a much larger and faster-growing revenue base. An investor choosing between the two would see a clearer, albeit still risky, growth story with Dave. The quality vs. price trade-off is more favorable for Dave; while it's a risky asset, its strategic position is far clearer than Mogo's. Winner: Dave Inc. is the better value, as its low valuation comes with a more tangible and scalable business model.
Winner: Dave Inc. over Mogo Inc. Dave is the stronger of these two small-cap fintechs due to its focused strategy and superior scale. Its key strengths are its well-defined brand proposition, a large user base (10M+ members), and a rapidly growing revenue stream (~$250M TTM). Mogo's weaknesses are its unfocused strategy and failure to gain traction in any of its target markets. While both are high-risk, speculative investments, Dave presents a more coherent and promising turnaround story backed by tangible user metrics, making it a comparatively better bet.
Block, Inc. represents the pinnacle of the fintech platform strategy, operating two multi-billion dollar ecosystems: Square for merchants and Cash App for consumers. It is an industry titan, and comparing it to Mogo is a study in contrasts between a global leader and a micro-cap company. This comparison serves to illustrate the immense difficulty and capital required to succeed at scale in fintech, and it starkly highlights the deficiencies in Mogo's strategy and execution.
Block's business moat is colossal. It benefits from two powerful, self-reinforcing ecosystems. The brand recognition of both Square and Cash App is immense. Switching costs for Square merchants are high due to deep integration with their business operations. Scale is massive, with ~$22B in TTM revenue and millions of users on both platforms. This creates powerful network effects—more Cash App users make it more useful for peer-to-peer payments, and more Square merchants provide a larger network for Cash App integration. Mogo has none of these advantages; its brand is unknown, switching costs are low, and it lacks scale and network effects. Winner: Block, Inc. by an astronomical margin, as it possesses one of the strongest moats in the entire technology sector.
Financially, Block operates on a completely different planet. Its revenue of ~$22B TTM dwarfs Mogo's ~$63M. Block is solidly profitable on an adjusted EBITDA basis, generating ~$1.8B annually, and is on a path to GAAP profitability. Its gross margins are strong and expanding. Block generates billions in Free Cash Flow, which it uses for strategic investments and share buybacks. Its balance sheet is a fortress with billions in cash. Mogo is unprofitable, burns cash, and has a weak balance sheet. Overall Financials winner: Block, Inc. for its immense profitability, cash generation, and financial strength.
Block's past performance is a story of visionary growth and industry disruption. Its revenue CAGR over the past 5 years has been spectacular. Its TSR has been volatile but has created enormous long-term value for early shareholders. Its track record of innovation and execution is unparalleled in the industry. Mogo's history is one of pivots and shareholder value destruction. In terms of risk, Block's risks are macroeconomic and competitive at the highest level. Mogo's risk is its own survival. Overall Past Performance winner: Block, Inc. for its historic growth and market-defining innovation.
Block's future growth is driven by international expansion for both ecosystems, moving upmarket to serve larger merchants with Square, and deepening monetization of the Cash App user base with new financial products. Its TAM is global and massive. Mogo's growth is limited to the niche Canadian payments market. Block's innovation pipeline is robust, constantly launching new features and products. Mogo's product development appears stalled. Overall Growth outlook winner: Block, Inc. due to its numerous, well-funded growth vectors and global ambition.
Valuation reflects the chasm in quality. Block trades at a premium Price/Sales multiple of ~1.5x and a forward EV/EBITDA of ~18-20x. This is a reasonable valuation for a company with its track record and future growth prospects. Mogo's sub-1x sales multiple is a sign of distress. Block is a high-quality asset at a fair price, while Mogo is a low-quality asset at a low price. The risk-adjusted return profile is far superior for Block. Winner: Block, Inc. is a much better investment, as its valuation is supported by world-class fundamentals.
Winner: Block, Inc. over Mogo Inc. This is a clear victory for the industry giant. Block's defining strengths are its dual ecosystems (Square and Cash App), which have immense moats built on brand, scale (~$22B revenue), and network effects. It is highly profitable and generates billions in cash. Mogo's fatal weakness is its complete lack of scale and a viable, competitive strategy in any of its chosen markets. Comparing the two demonstrates that Mogo is not just a smaller version of Block; it is operating with a fundamentally broken model in a market where scale is everything.
Paysafe Limited is a global online payments company with a significant presence in digital wallets (Skrill, Neteller) and eCash solutions (paysafecard), particularly within the iGaming and digital goods sectors. It is a relevant competitor to Mogo's Carta payments division, but on a much larger and more specialized scale. While both are B2B payment providers, Paysafe has a well-established global niche and greater financial scale, whereas Carta is a smaller, more generalized platform provider.
Paysafe's business moat comes from its deep integration into the iGaming ecosystem, where its digital wallets are a preferred payment method. This creates high switching costs for both merchants and users within this vertical. Its brand, while not a household name, is strong within its target markets. Its scale is substantial, processing over $130 billion in annual transaction volume. Mogo's Carta has a much weaker brand, lower switching costs, and processes a tiny fraction of Paysafe's volume. Both companies operate under strict regulatory barriers in the financial world, but Paysafe's experience and resources in navigating global gaming regulations provide it a specialized advantage. Winner: Paysafe Limited due to its deep entrenchment in a profitable niche and greater operational scale.
Financially, Paysafe is significantly larger and more stable than Mogo. Paysafe's TTM revenue is ~$1.6B, compared to Mogo's ~$63M. Paysafe generates substantial positive adjusted EBITDA (~$450M TTM), with an EBITDA margin around 28%, demonstrating the profitability of its model. Mogo is unprofitable with negative margins. Paysafe has a highly leveraged balance sheet with significant net debt (~$2.4B), which is its primary financial weakness. However, it generates enough cash flow to service this debt. Mogo also has debt but lacks the cash flow to support it, making its leverage far riskier. Overall Financials winner: Paysafe Limited because it is profitable and generates significant cash flow, despite its high debt load.
In terms of past performance, Paysafe has a long, complicated history, including being taken private and then returning to the public markets via a SPAC. Its post-SPAC TSR has been very poor. However, its underlying business has shown stable, low-single-digit revenue growth. Mogo's performance has been even worse, with a more significant stock price collapse and no underlying business stability to fall back on. Paysafe's margins have been relatively consistent, while Mogo's have been consistently negative. From a risk perspective, Paysafe's main risk is its high leverage. Mogo's is its unprofitability and questionable strategy. Overall Past Performance winner: Paysafe Limited for at least maintaining a stable, profitable core business.
Paysafe's future growth is expected to come from the continued growth of the global iGaming market and its expansion in North America. It is a 'picks and shovels' play on this high-growth industry. Cost control and deleveraging are also key priorities. Mogo's future growth is less certain and tied to the success of its Carta subsidiary in a competitive market. Paysafe has better pricing power within its niche. Overall Growth outlook winner: Paysafe Limited due to its clear alignment with a major secular growth trend (online gaming).
Valuation-wise, Paysafe looks inexpensive. It trades at a very low forward EV/EBITDA multiple of ~6-7x and a Price/Sales ratio well below 1x. This low valuation is due to its high debt load and slow growth. Mogo also trades below 1x sales, but for reasons of unprofitability and strategic uncertainty. In a quality vs. price analysis, Paysafe offers a profitable, cash-flowing business at a discounted price, with the discount reflecting its high leverage. Mogo is cheap because it is deeply distressed. Winner: Paysafe Limited is the better value, as an investor is buying a profitable enterprise at a low multiple, betting on debt reduction to unlock value.
Winner: Paysafe Limited over Mogo Inc. Paysafe is a more stable and focused enterprise. Its key strengths are its profitable B2B payments model, its entrenched position in the high-growth iGaming vertical, and its significant scale (~$1.6B revenue vs. Mogo's $63M). Paysafe's main weakness is its high leverage, but it has the EBITDA to manage it. Mogo's weaknesses are its lack of profitability and a viable growth strategy. The primary risk for Paysafe is its debt burden, while the primary risk for Mogo is its fundamental business viability. Paysafe is a leveraged but functional company; Mogo is a speculative venture.
Based on industry classification and performance score:
Mogo's business model is fragmented and lacks a discernible competitive moat. The company is currently pivoting away from its struggling consumer-facing fintech app to focus on its B2B payments subsidiary, Carta. However, both segments face intense competition from larger, better-capitalized rivals, and the company has no clear durable advantages like brand, scale, or network effects. The investor takeaway is negative, as the business model carries significant execution risk and a very narrow path to profitability.
The company's financials demonstrate a clear lack of scalability, with consistently negative margins and high costs relative to its small revenue base.
A scalable technology infrastructure should allow a company to grow revenue faster than costs, leading to margin expansion. Mogo's financial performance shows the opposite. Its gross margins are weak and have been inconsistent. More importantly, its operating margin is deeply negative, often in the -30% to -40% range. This indicates that the cost to run the business and acquire customers far outweighs the gross profit generated. In contrast, scaled fintech players like Nuvei and Paysafe have adjusted EBITDA margins in the 30% range, showcasing the profitability of a scalable model.
Mogo's high R&D and Sales & Marketing expenses as a percentage of revenue are typical for a growth-stage company, but Mogo is not achieving the corresponding growth. Its Revenue per Employee is also likely well below the sub-industry average. This financial profile is not that of a business with strong operational leverage. Instead, it suggests a high-cost infrastructure that is struggling to support even a small revenue base, making the path to profitability extremely challenging and distant.
Mogo has failed to attract a meaningful user base or assets, resulting in virtually no customer stickiness or switching costs.
A key moat for investing platforms is the accumulation of customer assets, which creates inertia and makes it difficult for users to leave. Mogo has failed significantly on this front. While the company does not regularly disclose Assets Under Management (AUM), its active user base for its trading product is estimated to be below 100,000, a tiny fraction of its direct Canadian competitor Wealthsimple, which serves over 3 million clients with more than $30 billion in assets. This lack of scale means Mogo has no gravitational pull to keep users on its platform.
Without a large base of funded accounts or significant assets, the company cannot generate meaningful recurring revenue from management or transaction fees. Its Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) is consequently low, and there are virtually no switching costs for a customer who wants to move to a more established platform. This is a clear weakness compared to the sub-industry, where leaders build deep relationships by becoming the primary custodian of a customer's wealth. Mogo's inability to achieve this critical first step is a fundamental flaw in its consumer business model.
The company offers a fragmented set of products that are not well-integrated, failing to capture a larger share of the customer's financial life or create high switching costs.
Successful fintech platforms like SoFi or Block's Cash App create a powerful 'flywheel' effect by offering a suite of interconnected products that work seamlessly together. This increases user engagement, drives higher revenue per user (ARPU), and raises switching costs. Mogo's product offering—which includes a trading app, a crypto feature, and a prepaid card—feels more like a disconnected collection of features than a cohesive ecosystem. There is little evidence of successful cross-selling or integration that would make the platform indispensable to its users.
For example, SoFi successfully integrates lending, banking, and investing, encouraging users to make it their primary financial institution. Mogo has not achieved this level of integration. Its subscription revenue as a percentage of total revenue is not substantial enough to indicate a sticky, high-value user base. This failure to build a true ecosystem is a significant competitive disadvantage. Without a 'killer app' to draw users in and a web of interconnected services to keep them there, Mogo's platform remains a peripheral tool for its few users, rather than a central financial hub.
Despite being a regulated entity, Mogo has an unknown brand with low consumer trust, which is a major disadvantage in the financial services industry.
In finance, brand is a proxy for trust. While Mogo has been in operation for many years and holds the necessary regulatory licenses (e.g., from IIROC), this is merely the cost of entry, not a competitive advantage. The company has failed to build a brand that resonates with Canadian consumers. In stark contrast, competitor Wealthsimple has built one of the strongest fintech brands in Canada, becoming synonymous with accessible investing for millennials and Gen Z. SoFi achieved a similar feat in the US market.
Mogo's brand weakness is a critical barrier to customer acquisition. The company's persistently negative gross and operating margins suggest instability, which does not inspire confidence in a financial partner. Strong competitors exhibit stable or improving margins as a sign of a healthy, trusted business. Mogo's lack of brand equity means it must spend heavily on marketing to attract each new user, an unsustainable model without the viral, word-of-mouth growth that trusted brands enjoy.
Mogo's B2B payments division, Carta, is too small to benefit from network effects, operating as a commodity service provider in a market dominated by giants.
This factor is most relevant to Mogo's strategic pivot towards its Carta payments business. Powerful network effects arise when a platform becomes more valuable as more people use it, as seen with Block's Square (merchants) and Cash App (consumers) ecosystems. Carta's business model as a B2B card issuer does not inherently create strong network effects. The value for one of Carta's clients does not directly increase when another client joins the platform. It is primarily a technology vendor, not a network orchestrator.
Furthermore, Carta lacks the scale to even begin fostering a network. Its transaction volumes are not disclosed but are certainly a minuscule fraction of the ~$130 billion processed annually by Paysafe or the ~$43 billion processed quarterly by Nuvei. Without this scale, it cannot create a 'winner-take-most' dynamic. Instead, it competes on price and features in a highly competitive market, which is a much weaker competitive position. Its small number of enterprise clients and partner integrations is far below the industry leaders, giving it no discernible network-based moat.
Mogo's financial health is poor, characterized by operational losses, negative cash flow, and a highly leveraged balance sheet. In its latest quarter, the company reported a net loss of $4.51 million and burned $3.04 million in cash from operations. Its debt-to-equity ratio stands at a concerning 1.09, indicating more debt than shareholder equity. While a single prior quarter showed a large profit, it was due to a one-time asset sale, not underlying business strength. The overall financial picture is negative for investors, highlighting significant operational and balance sheet risks.
The company is highly inefficient, with total operating expenses (`$12.85 million`) exceeding revenue (`$10.82 million`) in the latest quarter, leading to persistent operational losses.
Mogo's efficiency in acquiring customers and running its business appears very poor. In the most recent quarter, its total operating expenses of $12.85 million were 119% of its revenue of $10.82 million. This resulted in an operating loss of -$2.03 million, demonstrating that the company's core business model is not profitable at its current scale. The cost to run the business and attract customers far outweighs the income it generates.
While specific Sales & Marketing figures are not provided, the high overall operating expense structure combined with anemic revenue growth of just 2.52% in the same quarter suggests that customer acquisition is neither efficient nor profitable. A healthy company should see its revenue grow faster than its expenses, leading to margin expansion, but Mogo is exhibiting the opposite trend.
Mogo's monetization model is weak, evidenced by a low gross margin of `39.3%` that is substantially below the benchmarks for a typical high-margin fintech business.
Mogo's ability to efficiently convert its services into profit is a significant concern. Based on reported revenue of $16.96 million and cost of services of $10.3 million, the company’s gross margin in the last quarter was approximately 39.3%. This figure is very low compared to the 60-80% gross margins often seen in the software and fintech platform industry. A low gross margin indicates that the company faces high direct costs to deliver its services, which could be related to its lending activities and associated loan loss provisions.
The income statement does not provide a clear breakdown between different revenue streams, such as stable subscriptions versus more volatile transaction fees or interest income. This lack of transparency makes it hard to assess the quality and predictability of its revenue. However, the persistently low gross margin is a clear indicator of a weak monetization strategy compared to its peers.
Mogo has strong short-term liquidity with a high current ratio, but its overall capital structure is weak and risky due to a high debt-to-equity ratio of `1.09`.
Mogo's capital position is a mix of short-term strength and long-term weakness. Its current ratio was 5.08 in the latest report, which is exceptionally strong and well above the typical software industry average of around 2.0. This suggests the company has more than enough current assets to meet its obligations over the next year. However, this liquidity is overshadowed by a weak balance sheet structure.
The company's total debt-to-equity ratio is 1.09, meaning it is financed by more debt than equity. This level of leverage is a significant concern for a company that is currently unprofitable and burning cash from its operations. The cash balance of $14.89 million provides only a small cushion relative to the total debt load of $84.48 million. This high debt increases financial risk and makes the company more vulnerable to market downturns or operational setbacks.
Mogo consistently fails to generate positive cash from its core operations, reporting negative operating cash flow of `-$3.04 million` in the last quarter.
A critical weakness for Mogo is its inability to generate cash from its main business activities. The company reported a negative cash flow from operations of -$3.04 million in its most recent quarter, following a negative -$1.27 million for the full fiscal year 2024. This consistent cash burn signifies that the business is not self-funding and must rely on external financing or asset sales to cover its day-to-day operational shortfalls.
As a result, its free cash flow margin was a deeply negative -28.18% in the latest quarter. For a fintech platform with an asset-light model, the failure to produce positive operating cash flow is a major red flag. It points to fundamental problems with either the company's profitability or its management of working capital, making its financial position precarious.
Mogo's past performance has been defined by extreme volatility and a consistent failure to achieve profitability. Over the last five years, the company has reported persistent net losses, erratic revenue growth that recently stalled, and negative cash flow, indicating an unsustainable business model. For instance, the company's operating margin has remained deeply negative, sitting at -34.27% in the latest fiscal year, and it has consistently burned through cash. Compared to peers like SoFi or Nuvei, which demonstrate strong growth and a path to profitability, Mogo's track record is exceptionally weak. The investor takeaway on its past performance is decidedly negative.
While specific company-reported user metrics are unavailable, comparisons to competitors and stagnant revenue figures strongly suggest Mogo has failed to achieve meaningful user growth or market adoption.
A key measure of success for a fintech platform is its ability to attract and retain a growing user base. Based on competitive analysis, Mogo lags dramatically, with a reported ~100,000 active trading users compared to Wealthsimple's 3 million+ clients in the same Canadian market or SoFi's 8 million+ members in the US. This vast discrepancy indicates a failure to build a compelling product that resonates with consumers.
The company's financial results support this conclusion. After a brief period of growth, revenue has stagnated and even declined, falling -8.05% in FY 2023 before a meager 1.46% recovery in FY 2024. Without a strong and growing user base, a platform cannot generate the network effects or scale needed to become profitable. Mogo's historical inability to capture significant market share is a fundamental failure.
The company's revenue growth has been highly erratic, marked by a single year of acquisition-fueled growth followed by stagnation and decline, indicating a lack of consistent execution or demand.
A strong track record of consistent revenue growth is a key indicator of a healthy business. Mogo's performance on this front has been poor and unreliable. Over the last five fiscal years, its annual revenue growth has been 3.33%, 80.56%, 10.61%, -8.05%, and 1.46%. The large jump in 2021 was not sustained, and the subsequent sharp deceleration, which included a year of revenue contraction, points to an unstable and unpredictable business.
This pattern suggests that growth was likely driven by one-off events or acquisitions rather than strong, organic market adoption. Competitors like SoFi and Dave have demonstrated much more consistent, high-growth revenue streams. Mogo's volatile top-line performance fails to provide investors with confidence in its ability to execute a sustainable growth strategy.
Mogo has a history of significant and persistent net losses, resulting in consistently negative earnings per share (EPS) over the past five years with no clear path to profitability.
Over the analysis period of FY 2020 to FY 2024, Mogo has failed to generate positive earnings for shareholders. The company's EPS has been consistently negative, recording -$1.40, -$1.58, -$6.51, -$0.72, and -$0.56 respectively. This poor performance is a direct result of substantial net losses each year, including a massive -$165.68 million loss in 2022, which was worsened by goodwill impairments. Even in its most recent year, the net loss stood at -$13.68 million.
This track record stands in stark contrast to successful fintech platforms that demonstrate a clear path to profitability as they scale. Competitors like SoFi have recently achieved GAAP profitability, while giants like Block are consistently profitable on an adjusted basis. Mogo's inability to convert revenue into profit after years of operation suggests fundamental flaws in its business model or execution, making its past earnings performance a significant weakness.
Mogo has a consistent history of deeply negative operating and net margins, showing no trend of expansion toward profitability over the past five years.
A healthy scaling company should demonstrate operating leverage, where margins expand as revenue grows. Mogo's history shows the opposite. The company's operating margins have been severely negative throughout the last five years, with figures of -53.97% (2020), -109.7% (2021), -94.64% (2022), -34.76% (2023), and -34.27% (2024). While the margin has improved from the extreme lows of 2021-2022, it remains at an unsustainable negative level, indicating that the company's core operations are unprofitable.
Free cash flow margins tell a similar story, with the only positive result occurring in 2020. In the most recent year, the FCF margin was -3.21%, meaning the company burns cash for every dollar of revenue it generates. This chronic inability to improve margins and achieve profitability contrasts sharply with profitable peers like Nuvei and Paysafe, whose business models generate healthy margins.
Mogo's market capitalization has collapsed by over 85% from its 2021 peak, indicating a catastrophic destruction of shareholder value that has dramatically underperformed peers and the broader market.
While specific total shareholder return (TSR) figures are not provided, the historical market capitalization data paints a clear and grim picture. Mogo's market cap peaked at CAD 304 million at the end of fiscal 2021 before plummeting to just CAD 45 million by the end of fiscal 2024. This represents a decline of over 85% in shareholder value in three years. The competitor analysis versus SoFi confirms this, noting a stock price drop of over 90% during that period.
This performance is abysmal in absolute terms and is significantly worse than that of its fintech peers, many of whom also faced market headwinds but did not experience such a complete collapse. This level of value destruction reflects the market's severe lack of confidence in Mogo's strategy, financial health, and future prospects. The historical return for shareholders has been exceptionally poor.
Mogo's future growth prospects are highly speculative and hinge almost entirely on the success of its small B2B payments subsidiary, Carta. The company's consumer-facing business has failed to compete with dominant players like Wealthsimple, leaving it with minimal relevance and no clear path to user monetization. While Carta offers a potential growth avenue, it is a small player in a market with giants like Nuvei and Paysafe, facing significant execution risk. Given the consistent cash burn and intense competition, the investor takeaway on Mogo's future growth is negative.
Mogo's entire future growth story now hinges on its B2B payments platform, Carta, as its consumer business has failed to gain traction, making this a highly concentrated and speculative bet.
With the retreat from its consumer-facing strategy, Mogo's only viable path to growth is through its B2B subsidiary, Carta Worldwide. This division, which provides technology for issuing and processing card payments, now generates the vast majority of the company's high-margin subscription and services revenue. While this represents a clear strategic focus, it is fraught with risk. The payments processing industry is dominated by giants with immense scale, such as Nuvei (~$1.26B TTM revenue) and Paysafe (~$1.6B TTM revenue). Carta is a microscopic competitor in this landscape, lacking the scale, brand recognition, and resources to compete for large enterprise clients. While management may highlight a pipeline of potential deals, the company's ability to execute and win against much larger incumbents is unproven. The opportunity is real, but Mogo is poorly equipped to seize it.
The company has demonstrably failed to monetize its consumer user base, with negligible revenue per user, making this a significant weakness rather than a growth driver.
Mogo has shown no ability to effectively monetize its consumer platform users. Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) is extremely low, and the company's product suite has not compelled users to adopt premium services. This contrasts sharply with successful fintechs like SoFi, which effectively cross-sells high-value lending and banking products to its 8 million+ members, or even Wealthsimple, which is successfully converting users to its premium tiers. Analyst EPS growth forecasts for Mogo are negative for the foreseeable future, reflecting the lack of a profitable consumer business model. With the strategic pivot to B2B, there is little reason to believe management will invest in turning this around. The user base is a dormant, non-revenue-generating asset.
Mogo has no credible international expansion strategy and is struggling to compete within its home market of Canada, making foreign growth a distant and unrealistic prospect.
There is no indication that Mogo is pursuing or has the resources for international expansion. The company's focus is on survival and scaling its Carta business within North America. Its International Revenue as % of Total is negligible or zero. This stands in stark contrast to its B2B competitors like Nuvei and Paysafe, which are global companies with operations and revenue streams spread across multiple continents. Even on the consumer side, successful fintechs often have global ambitions. Mogo's financial constraints and lack of a competitive advantage in its domestic market make any discussion of international growth purely academic. The company must first prove it can build a sustainable business in Canada before looking abroad.
Due to severe financial constraints, the company's pace of innovation and new product development is very low, putting it at a major disadvantage to well-funded and agile competitors.
While Mogo's strategic shift to focus on Carta could be seen as a 'new' direction, its overall product velocity is low. The company's R&D spending is limited by its need to preserve cash, hindering its ability to innovate and enhance its platform. Competitors like Block, SoFi, and Wealthsimple consistently roll out new features, products, and services, backed by massive R&D budgets, to attract and retain users. Mogo's product roadmap appears stagnant in comparison. The company lacks the financial firepower to engage in the arms race of innovation that defines the fintech industry, which severely limits its ability to create a differentiated offering and drive future growth.
The outlook for user and asset growth in its consumer division is negative, as the company has effectively abandoned a segment where it was already losing decisively to competitors.
Management no longer provides guidance on user growth, a clear signal of its de-emphasis on the consumer business. The company has failed to build a meaningful user base or gather significant assets under management (AUM). Its primary Canadian competitor, Wealthsimple, has attracted over 3 million clients and ~$30 billion in AUA, demonstrating the market potential that Mogo was unable to capture. Analyst forecasts for net new accounts or AUM growth for Mogo are nonexistent because the story has shifted entirely to B2B. The Total Addressable Market (TAM) for consumer finance in Canada is large, but Mogo has proven unable to gain any meaningful market share, making this a failed growth vector.
As of November 14, 2025, with a stock price of $1.77, Mogo Inc. appears to present a mixed valuation picture. The stock seems undervalued based on its Price-to-Book (P/B) ratio of 0.54, which is significantly below asset value. However, this view is challenged by its underlying operational performance, as the company is unprofitable from core operations and has negative free cash flow. The trailing P/E ratio of 5.7 is misleadingly low due to a one-time gain from the sale of investments. For investors, the takeaway is neutral to cautious; the valuation hinges on whether the company can effectively monetize its assets and achieve sustainable profitability, making it a speculative value play.
The company's valuation per user cannot be favorably assessed as the core user metrics are not provided, and the EV/Sales proxy is not compelling for an unprofitable company.
Enterprise Value (EV) offers a more comprehensive valuation than market cap by including debt and subtracting cash. Mogo's EV is approximately $111.7M ($42.09M Market Cap + $84.48M Total Debt - $14.89M Cash). With trailing revenue of $40.5M, this results in an EV/Sales ratio of 2.76x. While a November 2024 report mentioned Mogo reaching 2.17 million members, funded or monthly active user data, which are more critical for valuation, are not available. Without these key metrics, a direct and meaningful comparison of Enterprise Value per user against peers is not possible. The EV/Sales ratio of 2.76x is not particularly low for a company with inconsistent growth and negative operating margins, failing to provide a strong signal of undervaluation from this perspective.
The stock's Price-to-Sales ratio of 1.04 is low, but its inconsistent and recently low revenue growth does not justify a premium valuation, making it unattractive on a growth-adjusted basis.
For companies that are not yet profitable, the Price-to-Sales (P/S) ratio, when compared to revenue growth, is a critical valuation tool. Mogo's P/S ratio is 1.04 based on trailing-twelve-month sales. However, its revenue growth has been erratic, with a modest 2.52% in the most recent quarter after a stronger 17.23% in the prior quarter. This inconsistency makes it difficult to project a strong future growth trajectory. Ideally, a low P/S ratio should be accompanied by high and predictable growth. Given the recent slowdown and lack of visibility into sustained high growth, the current P/S ratio does not appear to be a bargain. Fintech peers with more robust and consistent growth profiles often trade at significantly higher multiples.
The forward P/E is zero, indicating that analysts expect the company to be unprofitable in the coming year, which is a negative signal for valuation.
The forward Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio is a key indicator of a company's future earnings potential relative to its current stock price. For Mogo, the provided data shows a Forward PE of 0. This implies that consensus analyst estimates project either zero or negative earnings per share (EPS) for the next fiscal year. Profitability is a cornerstone of valuation, and the lack of expected future profits makes it impossible to justify the current stock price based on near-term earnings. This is a significant concern and a clear justification for a "Fail" rating in this category.
The stock appears significantly undervalued compared to its own book value and likely trades at a substantial discount to fintech peer multiples on both a P/S and P/B basis.
This factor provides the strongest argument for potential undervaluation. Mogo's Price-to-Book (P/B) ratio of 0.54 is exceptionally low, indicating the market values the company at roughly half of its accounting net asset value. While the quality of these assets is a concern, such a steep discount often attracts value investors. Furthermore, its Price-to-Sales (P/S) ratio of 1.04 is very low for the fintech sector. Publicly traded fintech companies often have P/S ratios ranging from 3x to 8x or higher, depending on their growth and profitability profile. Even for less-profitable firms, a P/S ratio near 1.0x is at the extreme low end of the spectrum. This suggests that relative to its peers, Mogo is trading at a significant discount, which could represent a buying opportunity if the company can improve its operational performance.
The company's free cash flow is consistently negative, resulting in a negative yield, which indicates the business is consuming cash and cannot support a valuation based on cash generation.
Free Cash Flow (FCF) is the cash a company generates after accounting for cash outflows to support operations and maintain its capital assets. A positive FCF is crucial as it can be used to expand the business, pay down debt, or return value to shareholders. Mogo's freeCashFlow has been negative in its latest annual report (-$1.35M) and most recent quarter (-$3.05M). This leads to a negative FCF Yield, meaning the company is burning through cash rather than producing it. For investors, this is a major red flag as it questions the company's financial sustainability and its ability to create value without relying on external financing.
The primary risk for Mogo stems from intense competition and macroeconomic pressures. The Canadian fintech landscape is saturated with competitors, from major banks with massive resources to agile and well-funded startups like Wealthsimple. This competition makes it expensive to acquire new customers and puts pressure on fees, making a clear path to profitability difficult. Furthermore, Mogo's revenue streams, particularly personal loans and transaction-based fees, are highly sensitive to the economic climate. A prolonged period of high interest rates or an economic recession could lead to lower loan demand, increased default rates, and reduced consumer spending through its platform, directly impacting its top and bottom lines.
A deep dive into Mogo's financials reveals persistent vulnerabilities. The company has a history of net losses and has not yet demonstrated a sustainable model for generating consistent profit. While management has focused on achieving positive adjusted EBITDA by cutting costs, this doesn't replace the need for actual net income and positive cash flow from operations. Its balance sheet includes significant intangible assets from acquisitions and a large investment portfolio, including a stake in WonderFi. The value of these assets can be volatile and may not be easily liquidated, posing a risk to the company's book value. Any future need to raise capital could result in diluting existing shareholders, especially if market conditions are unfavorable.
Strategically, Mogo's business model has undergone several transformations, shifting from a primary focus on lending to a diversified platform that includes a prepaid card, crypto trading, and B2B payment processing through its Carta acquisition. While diversification can reduce risk, it also creates challenges in execution and brand identity. The company must prove it can effectively integrate its acquisitions and scale its newer ventures, particularly its B2B payments segment, which is now a key pillar of its growth strategy. The success of this pivot is far from guaranteed and depends on winning large contracts in a competitive global market, a significant challenge for a company of Mogo's size.
Click a section to jump