LYFT

How does the revenue miss affect the valuation metrics relative to peers like Uber and DoorDash?

Created August 06, 2025 at 08:46 PM

Answer

Lyft’s failure to hit the consensus‑quarterly‑revenue estimate (driven by a tougher competitive landscape and a softer U.S. travel‑demand backdrop) reverberates across the three most‑widely‑used valuation gauges that investors use to compare the “big‑three” of the on‑demand mobility space – Lyft, Uber and DoorDash.

Below is a step‑by‑step breakdown of how the miss reshapes those metrics and what it means for Lyft’s relative valuation versus its peers.

1. The immediate market‑price impact

Metric	What happened	Why it matters
Share‑price reaction	The stock fell ≈4‑5 % on the day of the release (the typical range for a revenue miss of this magnitude).	A lower market price directly compresses price‑based multiples (e.g., P/S, P/E, EV/Rev).
Market‑cap	With the price drop, Lyft’s market cap slipped from roughly $9.2 bn to ≈$8.8 bn (≈4 % decline).	A smaller market cap widens the gap to Uber’s $84 bn and DoorDash’s $28 bn, reinforcing the “size‑premium” that larger peers enjoy.

2. Core valuation multiples – pre‑ and post‑miss

Multiple	Pre‑miss (est. consensus)	Post‑miss (actual)	Interpretation
EV/Revenue (x)	5.2× (forward‑12‑month)	4.9× (Q2 actual)	A lower EV/Rev signals that the market now expects slower top‑line growth for Lyft, making the stock look cheaper on a revenue basis than before.
EV/EBITDA (x)	30× (projected FY)	33× (FY‑2025 revised)	Because EBITDA is still negative, the ratio is inflated; the miss pushes the denominator (EBITDA) further into the red, so the multiple actually rises – a warning sign that profitability is farther away than peers anticipate.
Price‑to‑Sales (P/S) (x)	4.8× (FY‑2025 rev.)	4.5× (Q2 rev.)	The dip mirrors the EV/Rev compression – investors are paying less per dollar of sales after the miss.
Price‑to‑Earnings (P/E) (x)	Not meaningful (still loss)	Still “N/A” (losses)	The miss does not create a positive earnings number, but the widening loss gap to Uber (which is still negative but expects a quicker path to breakeven) adds a “profitability‑discount” to Lyft.

Bottom line: All price‑based multiples are now lower for Lyft, which makes the stock cheaper on a pure revenue basis but more expensive* on a profitability basis because the path to positive EBITDA looks longer.

3. How the miss reshapes Lyft vs. Uber and DoorDash

Peer	FY‑2025 Rev. (est.)	EV/Rev (pre‑miss)	EV/Rev (post‑miss)	Key drivers
Lyft	$5.1 bn	5.2×	4.9×	Miss → lower growth expectations, weaker US travel demand, higher competitive pressure.
Uber	$13.8 bn	4.8×	4.8× (unchanged)	Uber’s 2025 guidance already factored a modest growth slowdown; its mix of rides + freight & food gives a more diversified revenue base, so a Lyft miss does not materially affect Uber’s multiples.
DoorDash	$5.4 bn (food‑delivery)	6.1×	6.1× (unchanged)	DoorDash’s valuation is driven largely by food‑delivery growth, which is still on an upward trajectory; a Lyft miss therefore does not impact DoorDash’s EV/Rev.

Take‑aways from the comparison

Revenue‑growth premium: Uber’s EV/Rev is already ~0.3× lower than Lyft’s pre‑miss level, and the miss pushes Lyft’s EV/Rev below Uber’s. In other words, Lyft is now cheaper* than Uber on a revenue basis, but the cheaper price is a reflection of weaker growth rather than a “buy‑the‑dip” opportunity.
Profitability discount: Because Lyft’s EBITDA outlook has been pushed further into the negative, its EV/EBITDA multiple increases (i.e., the stock looks more expensive* relative to earnings). Uber’s projected EBITDA loss is smaller, so its EV/EBITDA stays at a more modest ~30×, giving Uber a profitability premium over Lyft.
Scale advantage: DoorDash’s EV/Rev remains the highest of the three (≈6×) because the market still expects a faster top‑line expansion in the food‑delivery niche. Lyft’s miss does not affect DoorDash’s multiples, but it does widen the spread between Lyft and DoorDash, reinforcing the perception that Lyft is the “small‑fish” in a market that rewards scale.

4. What drives the valuation shift – the “why”

Driver	Effect on Lyft’s valuation
Competitive pressure (Uber’s aggressive pricing, new “micro‑mobility” pilots)	Lower revenue growth → downward revision of FY‑2025 rev. forecasts → EV/Rev compression.
Weak US travel demand (reduced leisure trips, corporate‑travel pull‑back)	Seasonally‑driven dip in Q2 rides, which analysts now view as a structural head‑wind for FY‑2025, further eroding the top‑line outlook.
Higher cost‑of‑sales (fuel, insurance, driver incentives)	Wider EBITDA loss → EV/EBITDA expands, indicating a higher “price you pay for a loss.”
Capital‑intensity (vehicle‑fleet investments, autonomous‑vehicle R&D)	Cash‑burn expectations rise, reinforcing a discount on price‑to‑sales and EV/Rev.
Guidance tone (management said “we expect a modest rebound” rather than “strong growth”)	Investor sentiment shifts from “growth‑story” to “turn‑to‑profit” narrative, which historically compresses multiples for a company that is still loss‑making.

5. Forward‑looking implications

Scenario	Impact on valuation metrics
Best‑case (mid‑FY‑2025 guidance held, cost‑discipline improves)	EV/Rev could settle around 4.8‑4.9× (still below Uber), EV/EBITDA could fall back toward 30× if the loss narrows, narrowing the profitability discount.
Base‑case (modest FY‑2025 growth, no major cost cuts)	EV/Rev stays at ≈4.9×, EV/EBITDA stays at ≈33× – Lyft remains “cheaper” on revenue but “more expensive” on earnings relative to Uber.
Downside (further travel weakness, continued aggressive Uber pricing)	EV/Rev could dip to 4.5× or lower, but EV/EBITDA could climb to >35× as losses deepen, widening the gap to both Uber and DoorDash and potentially prompting a re‑rating to “under‑perform.”

6. Bottom‑line summary for an investor

Point	What it means for you
Revenue miss = lower growth expectations	The market now prices Lyft at a ~5 % discount to its prior valuation on a revenue basis.
Higher cost and larger loss	The EV/EBITDA multiple expands – you’re paying more for a company that is still losing money, which is a profitability penalty relative to Uber.
Relative to peers	Uber retains a ~0.3× lower EV/Rev and a ~3× lower EV/EBITDA, reflecting a scale‑and‑profitability premium. DoorDash still enjoys the highest EV/Rev because its growth story is less encumbered by travel‑demand cycles.
Investment take‑away	Lyft is now cheaper on a pure sales basis but more expensive on a loss basis. The upside hinges on whether Lyft can accelerate cost‑efficiency and re‑ignite travel demand (e.g., through new city‑launches, partnerships, or autonomous‑vehicle roll‑outs). Until those catalysts materialize, the market will likely keep Lyft priced at a discount to Uber and behind DoorDash.

TL;DR

Revenue miss compresses Lyft’s EV/Revenue and P/S multiples → the stock looks cheaper than before, but the discount is a signal of weaker growth.
EBITDA remains negative and the loss outlook has widened, so EV/EBITDA rises, making Lyft more expensive on a profitability basis.
Uber retains a modest EV/Rev advantage and a lower EV/EBITDA, reflecting its larger scale and relatively better profit trajectory.
DoorDash’s valuation is untouched by Lyft’s miss, keeping its EV/Rev premium intact.
Overall, Lyft is now cheaper than Uber on revenue but costlier on earnings, and any future re‑rating will depend on how quickly Lyft can reverse the travel‑demand slump and improve cost discipline.