Tyro Payments Ltd vs Zip shares

If you’re eyeing the payments sector, Tyro Payments Ltd (ASX: TYR) and Zip Co Ltd (ASX: ZIP) are two major players you might have on your radar. Both are Aussie fintech companies making waves in digital transactions, but they take distinctly different approaches and have some big differences in their fundamentals. So, which payments stock is the better buy right now?

The case for Tyro Payments

Tyro Payments is a homegrown fintech that specialises in providing EFTPOS, business lending, and banking solutions, focusing largely on small to medium-sized businesses. According to its company profile, Tyro supports more than 76,000 Australian businesses, mainly serving the hospitality, retail, and healthcare sectors, and is gradually expanding into trades, accommodation, and services.

Looking at Tyro’s latest figures, a few things jump out:

• It has a market cap of $364.73 million, making it much smaller than some sector peers.
• Its P/E ratio sits at 17.39, which is lower than Zip’s.
• Tyro’s earnings per share are $0.039.
• There’s no dividend on offer at the moment, and franking data isn’t available for this article.
• Its Year To Date (YTD) return is -31.8%, signalling it’s had a rough year so far on the market.

While Tyro doesn’t pay a dividend and isn’t enjoying much momentum at the moment, its core business of merchant payment processing is critical to many Aussie SMEs and arguably less volatile than consumer-focused lending.

The case for Zip

Zip is best known for its Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) services, like Zip Pay and Zip Money. As of its latest public description, Zip is active across 12 countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. The company aims to disrupt traditional credit card models by offering flexible, interest-free payment solutions to consumers and merchants.

Key points from Zip’s fundamentals:

• Market cap stands at a robust $2.79 billion.
• Its P/E ratio is 24.50, higher than Tyro’s.
• Earnings per share are $0.091, noticeably higher than Tyro’s.
• Zip doesn’t pay a dividend either, so income investors will need to look elsewhere.
• The YTD return is -32.5%, so it has seen similar market pain as Tyro this year.

Zip’s BNPL model has found global traction but also faces macro headwinds and regulatory scrutiny. Its focus is on consumers and merchants who want alternatives to credit cards, making it a different beast to Tyro’s merchant-centric, bank-like model.

Valuation comparison

Tyro and Zip both trade on fundamentals that suggest they’re growth-oriented fintechs, but there are meaningful differences in valuation and scale.

Metric	Tyro Payments	Zip
Market Cap	$364.73 million	$2.79 billion
P/E Ratio	17.39	24.50
Earnings per Share	$0.039	$0.091
Dividend Yield	0.00%	0.00%
Year To Date Return	-31.8%	-32.5%

Note: Both companies list positive EPS figures, but their respective P/E ratios may be calculated using different measures of earnings (such as underlying or adjusted profit), which can explain why their P/E ratios and EPS numbers might not perfectly align on pure maths.

Neither company pays a dividend, so this is a straight-up growth story—no franking credits or yield to sway the decision. Zip’s higher P/E ratio and much larger market cap point to higher market expectations, but also, perhaps, higher perceived risk or growth.

Recent share price performance

Share price performance has been on the struggling side for both companies this year, so it’s not a story of momentum.

Comparing 25 August – 22 September 2026:

• Tyro’s share price fell from $0.83 on 25 August 2026 to $0.69 on 22 September 2026, representing a drop of 16.9% over this period.
• Zip’s share price fell from $2.66 on 25 August 2026 to $2.24 on 22 September 2026, a decrease of 15.8% across the same dates.
• Both have had a negative YTD return for 2026: Tyro at -31.8% and Zip at -32.5%.

Which is the better buy?

With both Tyro Payments Ltd and Zip languishing with negative returns in 2026 and neither paying a dividend, the decision comes down to business quality, growth potential, and valuation.

Personally, I’d lean toward Tyro Payments. Here’s why: Tyro’s lower P/E ratio suggests less frothy expectations from the market compared to Zip, so there may be less downside if sentiment stays cautious. Its business is deeply embedded with Australian merchants—a sticky and recurring revenue model. While Zip’s international scope and higher EPS are attractive, the Buy Now, Pay Later sector faces increased competition and regulatory clouds, and Zip’s higher valuation multiples reflect this more speculative trajectory.

Tyro is much smaller and arguably at an inflection point. If it can regain momentum, I think there’s more recovery potential for share price upside. That said, both companies are high-risk, high-reward options in a sector subject to shifts in sentiment and disruptive innovation. Ultimately, my pick would be Tyro Payments for investors who prefer a merchant-driven, lower-expectation play in payments.

The post Tyro Payments vs Zip: Which ASX Payments Stock Wins? appeared first on The Motley Fool Australia.

More reading

• 6 ASX 200 shares scoring renewed buy calls this week
• Is the Zip share price a bargain at $2.09?
• Down over 50%: 2 ASX shares to buy for global growth
• 4 ASX shares tipped by brokers to return 63% to 125%
• 7 ASX 200 shares with reaffirmed buy ratings this week

Motley Fool contributor Laura Stewart has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia’s parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has recommended Tyro Payments. The Motley Fool Australia has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Scott Phillips. This article was prepared with the assistance of Large Language Model (LLM) tools for the initial draft. Any content assisted by AI is subject to our robust human-in-the-loop quality control framework, involving thorough review, substantial editing, and fact-checking by our experienced writers and editors holding appropriate credentials. The Motley Fool Australia stands behind the work of our editorial team and takes ultimate responsibility for the content published by The Motley Fool Australia.

If you invest your superannuation into ASX dividend shares today, you can benefit from low tax rates, compound growth, and a passive income for when you decide to stop working.

But how much do you actually need in your super to generate the passive income you want to live off when you retire?

Let’s take a look, using $2,000 per week as an example.

I want to earn $2,000 per week in passive income, what do I need in my superannuation?

First of all, it’s important to note that ASX dividend shares don’t pay dividends to their shareholders on a weekly basis. Instead, they pay annually, twice per year, or some even pay every month.

That means that while you can strive for a $2,000-per-week income, it’ll be paid in chunks.

In that case, it’s easiest to calculate by thinking of your $2,000 weekly income as an annual sum.

Over the year, $2,000 per week totals $104,000.

Next, you need to divide that annual sum by the dividend yield of your portfolio.

Of course, the tricky thing is that the answer varies significantly depending on what shares you decide to invest in.

To help, here’s a guide for what you’d need in your superannuation if your portfolio had a dividend yield between 3% and 8%.

Breakdown by dividend yield

If your superannuation portfolio has a dividend yield of around 3%, you’ll need a balance of around $3.46 million to earn $104,000 in passive income each year.

Of course, a portfolio this size is out of reach for the majority of the population, so you’d either need to revise how much you expect to earn or increase your yield.

Because as the dividend yield of your portfolio goes up, the superannuation balance you’ll need to earn the same amount goes down.

For example, if you increase your yield to 4%, you’d need closer to $2.6 million to earn the same passive income. It’s still a lot, but it’s starting to become a lot more achievable. And remember, this is a passive income that you don’t need to do a lot for.

At a 4% yield, you could invest in long-standing blue-chip shares like BHP Group Ltd (ASX: BHP) or ANZ Group Holdings Ltd (ASX: ANZ).

Then, if your portfolio yields around 5%, your balance would need to be closer to $2.08 million to generate the same dividend income.

Woodside Energy Group Ltd (ASX: WDS) and Origin Energy Ltd (ASX: ORG) would be my top picks for a 5% yielding stock.

Increase that to a 6% or 7% dividend yield, and you’re looking at closer to $1.7 million or $1.4 million.

Amcor PLC (ASX: AMC) and Cash Converters International Ltd (ASX: CCV) yield around the 6% to 7% level.

Then, at an 8% dividend yield, you’d only need around $1.3 million in your superannuation to earn the same $104,000 annual passive income (equivalent of $2,000 per week) in your retirement.

For an ASX share yielding around 8%, I’d go for something like the Metrics Master Income Trust (ASX: MXT) or Betashares S&P Australian Shares High Yield ETF (ASX: HYLD).

Can’t I just invest in high-yielding stocks so I can earn the amount I want off a lower balance?

Yes, but it doesn’t make good investment sense. 

Generally, the higher the yield, the more risk associated with that investment.

So while you could earn the same passive income off a smaller balance, these stocks are subject to more volatility. And that could risk your entire portfolio.

Ideally, you want to strike a balance between a range of shares at several different yields to hedge against volatility and protect your portfolio from fluctuating prices.

The post How much superannuation do I need to earn $2,000 per week in passive income? appeared first on The Motley Fool Australia.

More reading

• 6 ASX 200 shares scoring renewed buy calls this week
• Buy, hold, sell: BHP, CSL, and Westpac shares
• BHP shares fall as mining operations grind to a halt
• 5 things to watch on the ASX 200 on Thursday
• Here are the most popular ASX share superannuation investments in SMSFs

Motley Fool contributor Samantha Menzies has positions in BHP Group. The Motley Fool Australia’s parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia has positions in and has recommended Amcor Plc. The Motley Fool Australia has recommended BHP Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Scott Phillips.

AMP vs Perpetual shares: which ASX financial is better value?

Choosing between AMP Ltd (ASX: AMP) and Perpetual Ltd (ASX: PPT) means sizing up two ASX-listed financial veterans with serious pedigree but starkly different value stories. AMP has been shaking things up in recent years, while Perpetual’s recent big acquisition has added scale and diversification. For investors chasing value or dividends from the financial sector, there are some eye-catching contrasts here.

The case for AMP

AMP is one of Australia’s oldest names in finance, with roots going back more than 170 years. Originally a mutual providing life insurance, AMP today offers superannuation, investment management, banking, and insurances to millions of Australians and corporate customers. According to its most recent public profile, AMP offloaded Collimate Capital and reshaped its advice business through a joint venture—moves designed to leave behind legacy issues and focus on a simpler, stronger core.

What jumps out from AMP’s fundamentals is its robust share price run, up 41.2% year to date. That’s streets ahead of the broader financials sector and reflects a major rebound in market confidence. The current P/E ratio (34.05) shows the market’s expectations for at least steady profitability, alongside a modest EPS of 7.4 cents per share. Dividend yield sits at 1.98%, lower than most sector peers, with partial franking of 20%. This is a far cry from AMP’s rich historical income, but it’s a reflection of how the company has prioritised capital strength and repositioning in recent years.

The case for Perpetual

Perpetual is another stalwart, best known as an active asset manager and trusted trustee. The company, founded in 1886, has three distinct but complementary arms: investments, private wealth (serving high net-worth clients), and corporate trust services. Perpetual’s defining recent move was its acquisition of the Pendal Group in early 2023, creating a $200 billion global multi-boutique asset manager. That’s turned PPT into a true global player rather than just an Aussie incumbent.

Looking at the data, Perpetual trades on a P/E of 37.6, which is slightly higher than AMP’s. Their EPS, however, is negative at -16.2 cents—something not reflected in the P/E (suggesting this is based on an adjusted or forward earnings measure). The standout for value-oriented investors? PPT’s dividend yield is a chunky 6.22%—about three times AMP’s—though current franking is not disclosed in the latest figures. The dividend per share for the past year stands at $1.26, which dwarfs AMP’s 5 cents per share. Year to date, Perpetual shares are up 11.6%: solid, but outpaced by AMP’s rally.

Valuation comparison

Here are the clearest side-by-side metrics from the data provided:

	AMP	Perpetual
Market Cap	$6.20 billion	$1.93 billion
P/E Ratio	34.05	37.60
Earnings per share (EPS)	0.074	-0.162
Dividend Yield	1.98%	6.22%
Dividend per share	$0.05	$1.26
Franking	20%	–
Year To Date Return	41.2%	11.6%

Note: Perpetual’s reported P/E ratio may be based on a different earnings measure (perhaps underlying or forward earnings), as its latest EPS is negative while its P/E is positive.

If you’re hunting for yield, Perpetual jumps out: a 6.22% yield on a 20+ dollar share price is a big income carrot, even as franking on recent dividends appears mixed or undisclosed. AMP, meanwhile, is trading on a lower yield but with franking at 20%. Both carry high-ish P/E ratios for financials, though these aren’t directly comparable to banks and insurers, as both companies have unique business models and periodic restructuring noise affecting their numbers.

Recent share price performance

Comparing the period 25 August – 21 September 2026:

• AMP: AMP shares climbed from $2.40 to $2.55, up about 6.3% during this stretch, in line with a strong year-to-date move of 41.2%.
• Perpetual: PPT was notably volatile—shares began the period at $19.68 and closed at $16.64, a slide of about 15.5%. Notably, the biggest drop came on 21 September 2026, with the stock shedding 15.1% in a single day. Year to date though, the shares are still up 11.6%.

Which is the better buy?

If you’re after explosive price momentum, AMP has been on an absolute tear this year, with a 41% year-to-date gain and resilience even as its dividend story remains muted. For those prioritising yield, Perpetual offers three times the dividend payout and a historical commitment to income, but its negative EPS raises questions about underlying earnings power right now—and the stock has taken a beating in September.

Based on this snapshot, I’d lean toward Perpetual as better value for income investors who want fat, frequent dividends and some leverage to a global funds management franchise. However, the recent price wobble and negative EPS give me pause: this is not a “set and forget” investment and will likely see more volatility as Pendal integration plays out.

For growth-oriented or turnaround hunters, AMP’s strong price run and ongoing simplification make it a more energetic, if riskier, story—but the low yield means it’s less rewarding for patient dividend collectors.

My pick, for pure value and income, would be Perpetual—cautiously, with eyes wide open to volatility and the need for the business to get earnings back on a growth track.

The post AMP vs Perpetual: Which ASX financial stock is better value? appeared first on The Motley Fool Australia.

More reading

• GPT Group vs Dexus: Which ASX REIT is better value right now?
• Viva Energy, Codan, AMP shares reach 52-week highs: How much higher can they go?
• Buy, sell, hold: AMP, Wesfarmers, Woodside shares
• Perpetual rejects EQT’s final offer and confirms asset sale plans
• 7 ASX 200 shares with reaffirmed buy ratings this week

Motley Fool contributor Laura Stewart has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia’s parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Scott Phillips. This article was prepared with the assistance of Large Language Model (LLM) tools for the initial draft. Any content assisted by AI is subject to our robust human-in-the-loop quality control framework, involving thorough review, substantial editing, and fact-checking by our experienced writers and editors holding appropriate credentials. The Motley Fool Australia stands behind the work of our editorial team and takes ultimate responsibility for the content published by The Motley Fool Australia.