In the dynamic world of software applications, Figma, Inc. and Asana, Inc. stand out as pioneers transforming how teams collaborate and create. Both headquartered in San Francisco, these companies operate in overlapping markets, focusing on innovative tools that enhance productivity and creativity. This comparison explores their strategies and market positions to help you decide which stock might be the smarter addition to your investment portfolio. Let’s uncover which company offers the most compelling opportunity for investors today.
Table of contents
Companies Overview
I will begin the comparison between Figma and Asana by providing an overview of these two companies and their main differences.
Figma Overview
Figma, Inc. develops a browser-based design tool aimed at user interface creation, helping design and development teams collaborate on product development. The company offers various products such as Figma Design for prototyping, Dev Mode for code inspection, and AI tools like Figma Make. Founded in 2012 and headquartered in San Francisco, Figma is positioned in the software application industry with a market cap of $14.4B.
Asana Overview
Asana, Inc. operates a work management platform designed for individuals, teams, and executives to manage tasks and strategic initiatives across multiple industries. Its platform supports project orchestration, marketing campaigns, and goal setting. Incorporated in 2008 and based in San Francisco, Asana serves a broad customer base and maintains a market cap of $2.6B in the software application sector.
Key similarities and differences
Both Figma and Asana are technology companies headquartered in San Francisco, operating in the software application industry with platforms designed to improve team productivity and collaboration. Figma focuses on design and prototyping tools for product development, while Asana concentrates on work management and task orchestration across various sectors. Figma’s market capitalization significantly exceeds that of Asana, reflecting their differing scales and market positions.
Income Statement Comparison
The table below presents the key income statement metrics for Figma, Inc. and Asana, Inc. for their most recent fiscal years, allowing for a straightforward financial comparison.
| Metric | Figma, Inc. (FIG) | Asana, Inc. (ASAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | 14.4B | 2.6B |
| Revenue | 749M | 724M |
| EBITDA | -870M | -230M |
| EBIT | -877M | -247M |
| Net Income | -732M | -256M |
| EPS | -3.11 | -1.11 |
| Fiscal Year | 2024 | 2025 |
Income Statement Interpretations
Figma, Inc.
Figma’s revenue grew significantly by 48.36% from 2023 to 2024, reaching $749M, yet its net income plunged to a loss of $732M. Gross margin remained strong at 88.32%, but operating and net margins deteriorated sharply, reflecting a substantial increase in operating expenses. The latest year showed growth in top-line revenue but worsening profitability and margins.
Asana, Inc.
Asana’s revenue steadily increased by 10.94% in the most recent year to $724M, supported by a favorable gross margin of 89.34%. Net income remained negative at $256M, but margins improved with a net margin of -35.3%, better than prior years. Operating expenses grew proportionally with revenue, and profitability indicators showed slight improvements in the latest period.
Which one has the stronger fundamentals?
Asana demonstrates generally stronger fundamentals with consistent revenue growth over multiple years and improving margins, supported by a majority of favorable income statement metrics. Figma’s high revenue growth contrasts with heavy losses and unfavorable margin trends, indicating weaker profitability despite top-line expansion. Overall, Asana’s income statement shows more positive financial health signals.
Financial Ratios Comparison
The table below presents key financial ratios for Figma, Inc. (FIG) and Asana, Inc. (ASAN) based on their most recent fiscal year data, providing a snapshot of their financial health and performance.
| Ratios | Figma, Inc. (FIG) FY 2024 | Asana, Inc. (ASAN) FY 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| ROE | -55.3% | -112.3% |
| ROIC | -59.7% | -53.0% |
| P/E | -70.7 | -19.2 |
| P/B | 39.1 | 21.5 |
| Current Ratio | 3.66 | 1.44 |
| Quick Ratio | 3.66 | 1.44 |
| D/E | 0.022 | 1.18 |
| Debt-to-Assets | 1.6% | 30.1% |
| Interest Coverage | 0 | -72.4 |
| Asset Turnover | 0.42 | 0.81 |
| Fixed Asset Turnover | 17.1 | 2.76 |
| Payout Ratio | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend Yield | 0 | 0 |
Interpretation of the Ratios
Figma, Inc.
Figma’s ratios present a mixed picture with notable weaknesses in profitability metrics such as net margin (-97.74%) and return on equity (-55.29%), both unfavorable. Strong points include a low debt-to-equity ratio (0.02) and high fixed asset turnover (17.09). The company does not pay dividends, likely reflecting reinvestment in growth and innovation, consistent with its high research and development expenses.
Asana, Inc.
Asana shows several unfavorable profitability ratios, including a net margin of -35.3% and return on equity at -112.31%, signaling ongoing losses. Its debt-to-equity ratio is higher (1.18), which is unfavorable, while liquidity ratios are more balanced with a current ratio at 1.44. Asana also does not pay dividends, likely focusing on reinvestment and growth strategies typical for its sector and stage.
Which one has the best ratios?
Comparing both, Figma has a higher proportion of favorable ratios (42.86%) compared to Asana’s 21.43%, despite both showing significant profitability challenges. Figma’s stronger balance sheet metrics and lower leverage contrast with Asana’s higher debt and mixed liquidity, suggesting Figma’s ratios are generally more favorable, though risks remain for both companies.
Strategic Positioning
This section compares the strategic positioning of Figma, Inc. and Asana, Inc., focusing on market position, key segments, and exposure to technological disruption:
Figma, Inc.
- Market position and competitive pressure
- Key segments and business drivers
- Exposure to technological disruption
Asana, Inc.
- Larger market cap of 14.4B; faces competitive pressure in UI design software.
- Focuses on collaborative UI design tools and AI-powered prototyping solutions.
- Integrates AI and browser-based design tools, adapting to evolving tech trends.
Figma, Inc. vs Asana, Inc. Positioning
Figma has a concentrated focus on design software with AI integration, while Asana targets a diversified range of industries with a broad work management platform. Figma benefits from specialization; Asana leverages cross-sector reach and broader user needs.
Which has the best competitive advantage?
Both firms exhibit very unfavorable MOAT evaluations with declining ROIC versus WACC, indicating neither currently maintains a strong competitive advantage or value-creating position based on available financial data.
Stock Comparison
The stock price movements of Figma, Inc. (FIG) and Asana, Inc. (ASAN) over the past year reveal significant declines with differing momentum and volume dynamics, highlighting contrasting trading behaviors and trend acceleration patterns.
Trend Analysis
Figma, Inc. exhibited a bearish trend over the past 12 months with a price decrease of 75.76%, showing acceleration in the downward movement and a high volatility marked by a 19.95 standard deviation.
Asana, Inc. also followed a bearish trend with a 39.07% price decline over the year, but with decelerating losses and lower volatility indicated by a 2.87 standard deviation.
Comparing the two, Asana outperformed Figma by delivering a smaller percentage loss, making it the stock with the highest relative market performance in this period.
Target Prices
The target price consensus for these software application companies shows moderate upside potential.
| Company | Target High | Target Low | Consensus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Figma, Inc. | 52 | 38 | 43.6 |
| Asana, Inc. | 18 | 14 | 15.75 |
Analysts expect Figma’s stock to rise significantly from its current price of 29.57, while Asana’s targets suggest a moderate increase above its current 10.93 price.
Analyst Opinions Comparison
This section compares analysts’ ratings and grades for Figma, Inc. (FIG) and Asana, Inc. (ASAN):
Rating Comparison
FIG Rating
- Rating: C+ indicating a very favorable evaluation.
- Discounted Cash Flow Score: 4, favorable, suggesting undervaluation potential.
- ROE Score: 1, very unfavorable, showing low efficiency in generating profits.
- ROA Score: 1, very unfavorable, indicating poor asset utilization.
- Debt To Equity Score: 4, favorable, reflecting stronger balance sheet.
- Overall Score: 2, moderate, summarizing mixed financial health.
ASAN Rating
- Rating: D+ also noted as very favorable despite lower scores overall.
- Discounted Cash Flow Score: 1, very unfavorable, indicating possible overvaluation.
- ROE Score: 1, very unfavorable, similarly low profitability efficiency.
- ROA Score: 1, very unfavorable, also poor at generating earnings from assets.
- Debt To Equity Score: 1, very unfavorable, indicating higher financial risk.
- Overall Score: 1, very unfavorable, reflecting weaker financial standing.
Which one is the best rated?
Based strictly on the provided data, FIG is better rated overall with a C+ rating and a moderate overall score of 2, significantly outperforming ASAN’s D+ rating and overall score of 1. FIG shows strengths in discounted cash flow and debt management compared to ASAN.
Scores Comparison
Here is a comparison of the Altman Z-Score and Piotroski Score for Figma, Inc. and Asana, Inc.:
FIG Scores
- Altman Z-Score: 14.34, indicating a safe zone.
- Piotroski Score: 4, classified as average financial strength.
ASAN Scores
- Altman Z-Score: -0.27, indicating a distress zone.
- Piotroski Score: 4, classified as average financial strength.
Which company has the best scores?
Based on the scores provided, Figma, Inc. has a significantly higher Altman Z-Score indicating stronger financial stability compared to Asana, Inc., while both have identical average Piotroski Scores.
Grades Comparison
Here is a detailed comparison of the recent grades issued by reputable financial institutions for the two companies:
Figma, Inc. Grades
The table below summarizes the latest grades from major financial firms for Figma, Inc.:
| Grading Company | Action | New Grade | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morgan Stanley | Maintain | Equal Weight | 2026-01-15 |
| Wells Fargo | Upgrade | Overweight | 2026-01-08 |
| RBC Capital | Maintain | Sector Perform | 2026-01-05 |
| Goldman Sachs | Maintain | Neutral | 2025-11-07 |
| JP Morgan | Maintain | Neutral | 2025-11-06 |
| Piper Sandler | Maintain | Overweight | 2025-11-06 |
| Wells Fargo | Maintain | Equal Weight | 2025-11-05 |
| Wells Fargo | Maintain | Equal Weight | 2025-09-04 |
| Morgan Stanley | Maintain | Equal Weight | 2025-09-04 |
| RBC Capital | Maintain | Sector Perform | 2025-09-04 |
Figma’s grades trend mostly towards a neutral or hold stance, with occasional upgrades to overweight, reflecting moderate confidence.
Asana, Inc. Grades
The table below shows the recent grades from recognized grading companies for Asana, Inc.:
| Grading Company | Action | New Grade | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citigroup | Upgrade | Buy | 2026-01-15 |
| RBC Capital | Maintain | Underperform | 2026-01-05 |
| Keybanc | Upgrade | Overweight | 2025-12-15 |
| DA Davidson | Maintain | Neutral | 2025-12-04 |
| Citigroup | Maintain | Neutral | 2025-12-03 |
| RBC Capital | Maintain | Underperform | 2025-12-03 |
| UBS | Maintain | Neutral | 2025-12-03 |
| Baird | Maintain | Neutral | 2025-09-04 |
| Morgan Stanley | Maintain | Underweight | 2025-09-04 |
| Piper Sandler | Maintain | Overweight | 2025-09-04 |
Asana’s grades are mixed, ranging from underperform and underweight to buy and overweight, indicating a more varied outlook.
Which company has the best grades?
Asana, Inc. has received a stronger consensus with more buy ratings and upgrades, while Figma, Inc. mainly holds neutral or equal weight grades. This indicates that investors might perceive Asana as having higher growth potential but with some contrasting risk opinions.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Below is a comparison of key strengths and weaknesses for Figma, Inc. (FIG) and Asana, Inc. (ASAN), based on the most recent financial and operational data.
| Criterion | Figma, Inc. (FIG) | Asana, Inc. (ASAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Diversification | Limited product segmentation; focused on design collaboration | Limited product segmentation; focused on work management |
| Profitability | Negative net margin (-97.74%), negative ROE (-55.29%), and declining ROIC (-59.68%); shedding value | Negative net margin (-35.3%), negative ROE (-112.31%), and declining ROIC (-53.03%); shedding value |
| Innovation | Strong fixed asset turnover (17.09), indicating efficient asset use | Moderate asset turnover (0.81) and fixed asset turnover (2.76), indicating moderate operational efficiency |
| Global presence | Not explicitly detailed; likely moderate | Not explicitly detailed; likely moderate |
| Market Share | Data not available; no clear indication of leading position | Data not available; no clear indication of leading position |
In summary, both Figma and Asana are currently facing significant challenges regarding profitability and value creation, with declining returns on invested capital and negative margins. Figma demonstrates higher efficiency in asset utilization, but both companies show limited diversification and uncertain market leadership, suggesting cautious consideration for investors.
Risk Analysis
Below is a comparison of key risks for Figma, Inc. and Asana, Inc. based on the most recent data available in 2026:
| Metric | Figma, Inc. (FIG) | Asana, Inc. (ASAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Market Risk | High volatility (beta: -3.8) | Moderate volatility (beta: 0.92) |
| Debt Level | Very low (D/E: 0.02) | High (D/E: 1.18) |
| Regulatory Risk | Moderate (US tech sector) | Moderate (US tech sector) |
| Operational Risk | Moderate (negative margins) | Moderate (negative margins) |
| Environmental Risk | Low (software industry) | Low (software industry) |
| Geopolitical Risk | Moderate (US-based global exposure) | Moderate (US-based global exposure) |
Figma faces significant market risk due to its high negative beta, indicating price moves contrary to the market, and weak profitability metrics. Asana carries higher debt risk, with a debt-to-equity ratio above 1, increasing financial vulnerability. Both companies operate in a moderately regulated US tech environment but have low environmental risks. Operationally, negative net margins and returns highlight ongoing challenges. The most impactful risks are Figma’s market volatility and Asana’s elevated debt, both critical for cautious portfolio inclusion.
Which Stock to Choose?
Figma, Inc. (FIG) showed strong revenue growth of 48.36% in 2024 but suffered from declining profitability with net margin at -97.74% and return on equity at -55.29%. Its debt levels remain low, and liquidity ratios are mixed, while the overall financial ratios and income statement evaluations are unfavorable. The company’s rating is C+ with a moderate overall score but very unfavorable return metrics.
Asana, Inc. (ASAN) experienced moderate revenue growth of 10.94% in 2025 and a more favorable income statement profile with a net margin of -35.3%. However, profitability ratios like ROE and ROIC remain negative, and the company carries higher debt compared to FIG. Its financial ratios are slightly unfavorable overall, and the rating stands at D+ with a very unfavorable overall score and distress-zone Altman Z-score.
Considering ratings and financial metrics, FIG might appeal more to investors favoring growth potential despite profitability challenges, while ASAN could be of interest to those who prioritize recent income statement improvements but accept higher financial risk. Both companies currently show value destruction, suggesting cautious interpretation of their financial health.
Disclaimer: Investment carries a risk of loss of initial capital. The past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Be sure to understand risks before making an investment decision.
Go Further
I encourage you to read the complete analyses of Figma, Inc. and Asana, Inc. to enhance your investment decisions:
