VRSN
TechnologyVerisign
Price Chart
Market Data
Financials
XBRL · SEC EDGAR2007–2025(19yr)| Metric | FY 2007 | FY 2008 | FY 2009 | FY 2010 | FY 2011 | FY 2012 | FY 2013 | FY 2014 | FY 2015 | FY 2016 | FY 2017 | FY 2018 | FY 2019 | FY 2020 | FY 2021 | FY 2022 | FY 2023 | FY 2024 | FY 2025Latest | YoY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $850.5M | $964.7M | $1.0B | $680.6M | $772.0M | $873.6M | $965.1M | $1.0B | $1.1B | $1.1B | $1.2B | $1.2B | $1.2B | $1.3B | $1.3B | $1.4B | $1.5B | $1.6B | $1.7B | +6.4% |
| Gross Profit | $610.4M | $733.3M | $784.7M | $523.9M | $606.7M | $706.0M | $778.1M | $821.7M | $866.6M | $943.9M | $971.8M | $1.0B | $1.1B | $1.1B | $1.1B | $1.2B | $1.3B | $1.4B | $1.5B | +6.9% |
| Gross Margin | 71.8% | 76.0% | 76.1% | 77.0% | 78.6% | 80.8% | 80.6% | 81.3% | 81.8% | 82.6% | 83.4% | 84.2% | 85.3% | 85.8% | 85.5% | 85.9% | 86.8% | 87.7% | 88.2% | +0.4pp |
| Operating Income | -$231.5M | $63.6M | $313.7M | $232.3M | $329.4M | $457.3M | $528.2M | $564.4M | $605.9M | $686.6M | $707.7M | $767.4M | $806.1M | $824.2M | $866.8M | $943.1M | $1.0B | $1.1B | $1.1B | +5.9% |
| Operating Margin | -27.2% | 6.6% | 30.4% | 34.1% | 42.7% | 52.4% | 54.7% | 55.9% | 57.2% | 60.1% | 60.7% | 63.2% | 65.5% | 65.2% | 65.3% | 66.2% | 67.0% | 67.9% | 67.7% | -0.3pp |
| Net Income | -$150.3M | -$374.3M | $245.6M | $831.0M | $142.9M | $320.0M | $544.5M | $355.3M | $375.2M | $440.6M | $457.2M | $582.5M | $612.3M | $814.9M | $784.8M | $673.8M | $817.6M | $785.7M | $825.7M | +5.1% |
| Net Margin | -17.7% | -38.8% | 23.8% | 122.1% | 18.5% | 36.6% | 56.4% | 35.2% | 35.4% | 38.6% | 39.2% | 47.9% | 49.7% | 64.4% | 59.1% | 47.3% | 54.8% | 50.4% | 49.8% | -0.6pp |
| Free Cash Flow | $319.0M | $363.0M | $278.3M | $134.7M | $143.2M | $484.6M | $513.8M | $561.6M | $610.8M | $641.4M | $653.3M | $660.8M | $713.6M | $686.8M | $754.1M | $803.7M | $808.0M | $874.5M | $1.1B | +22.2% |
| FCF Margin | 37.5% | 37.6% | 27.0% | 19.8% | 18.6% | 55.5% | 53.2% | 55.6% | 57.7% | 56.2% | 56.1% | 54.4% | 57.9% | 54.3% | 56.8% | 56.4% | 54.1% | 56.2% | 64.5% | +8.3pp |
| EPS (Diluted) | $-0.63 | $-1.87 | $1.28 | $4.64 | $0.86 | $1.95 | $3.49 | $2.52 | $2.82 | $3.42 | $3.68 | $4.75 | $5.15 | $7.07 | $7.00 | $6.24 | $8.07 | $8.27 | $8.98 | +8.6% |
1. THE BIG PICTURE
Verisign is a regulated monopoly masquerading as a tech company, serving as the essential bookkeeper for the internet’s most valuable real estate. Its primary value is not innovation, but the absolute reliability of its infrastructure, which has resolved every .com and .net query without failure for nearly three decades (8-K).
2. WHERE THE RISKS HIT HARDEST
Verisign’s "Infrastructure Scale and Reliability" (10-K Item 1) is directly threatened by "AI-enhanced threats and DDoS attacks" (RISKS) because any service outage would violate contractual Service Level Agreements and jeopardize the registry renewals that provide "substantially all" of its revenue. Furthermore, the "Shared Registration System" (10-K Item 1) is vulnerable to "Platform Disintermediation" (10-K Item 1). As users increasingly establish digital identities on social media or e-commerce marketplaces rather than through standalone websites, the fundamental demand for the domain registrations that Verisign processes is eroded.
3. WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY TOGETHER
The financial data reveals a business that is becoming more efficient even as its core market matures. While revenue grew 7.5% in the most recent quarter (8-K), the actual base of .com and .net registrations grew by only 2.6%. This divergence suggests that Verisign is successfully extracting more value per registration through price increases or service fees, rather than relying on a surge of new internet users.
Verisign’s operational efficiency is peerless; its Return on Assets (ROAROAReturn on Assets — net income as a percentage of total assets. For banks, 1%+ is generally considered strong) of 58.5% is more than five times higher than that of NetApp (11.7%) and nearly fifteen times higher than Akamai (3.9%) (XBRL). This asset-light model allows Verisign to prioritize massive capital returns, including $1.1 billion returned to shareholders in 2025 alone (8-K). With short interest at a low 2.7% of the float, market sentiment remains stable despite the slow growth of the underlying domain base.
4. IS IT WORTH IT AT THIS PRICE?
At a 23.5x forward P/EP/EPrice-to-Earnings ratio — share price divided by annual earnings per share; how much investors pay per dollar of profit. Higher P/E = higher growth expectations, Verisign trades at a 71% premium to the peer median of 13.7x. According to the CAPM analysis, this price implies the market expects ~4.5% long-term growth. While Verisign’s recent 6.4% TTMTTMTrailing Twelve Months — the most recent full year of financial data, updated on a rolling basis each quarter revenue growth supports this expectation, the valuation is highly sensitive to any deceleration. If long-term growth were to slow to a GDP-paced 2.5%, the justified multiple would fall to 16.1x—a significant correction from current levels. The current premium is a "quality tax" investors pay for Verisign’s 58.5% ROAROAReturn on Assets — net income as a percentage of total assets. For banks, 1%+ is generally considered strong and its aggressive 4.2% buyback yield, but it leaves little room for error if "alternative namespaces" or blockchain-based domains begin to gain meaningful traction (RISKS).
5. WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS VIEW?
- Cautious if domain registration growth (currently 2.6%) trends toward zero or turns negative, indicating that the shift toward mobile apps and AI-driven navigation is permanently reducing the value of the DNS.
- Constructive if the U.S. Department of Commerce removes existing pricing restrictions on .com registrations, which would allow Verisign to significantly increase revenue without needing to grow its registration base.
6. BOTTOM LINE
Structural Advantage: Exclusive, contractually-protected control over the .com and .net registries, supported by a proprietary global server constellation with a 28-year record of perfect uptime.
Bottom Line: Verisign is a high-margin digital toll booth that remains a safe haven for capital, provided investors are willing to pay a steep premium for its regulatory moat.
1. Top 5 Material Risks
- Cybersecurity and DDoS Attacks: As an operator of critical internet infrastructure, Verisign experiences constant, sophisticated cyber-attacks, including AI-enhanced threats and DDoS attacks. These events threaten to cause service outages, failure to meet service level agreements (SLAs), and material liability claims.
- Registry Agreement Renewals: Substantially all of Verisign’s revenue is derived from operating the .com and .net gTLDs. The loss or modification of these rights—or failure to renew under favorable terms—would have a material adverse impact on Verisign’s business and revenue.
- Pricing Restrictions and Challenges: Verisign’s ability to increase annual fees for .com registrations is contractually limited and subject to DOC approval. Challenges to these pricing provisions from trade organizations, media, or governmental scrutiny can create material adverse effects.
- Technological Obsolescence: The evolution of internet practices, such as the shift toward mobile apps, search engines, and alternative namespaces (including blockchain), may decrease demand for traditional domain names, directly impacting registration and renewal volumes.
- Systemic Infrastructure Vulnerabilities: Verisign’s operations depend on the global routing system and the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). Vulnerabilities in these systems, which are outside of Verisign’s control, could lead to a loss of reachability for its services and damage its reputation for stability.
2. Company-Specific Risks
- Root Zone Maintainer Role: Verisign performs critical functions under the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) with ICANN; errors in publishing root zone data could lead to material tort claims for which Verisign may lack sufficient insurance or immunity.
- Registrar Dependency: All registrations occur through third-party registrars. Consolidation or changes in strategy among these registrars—such as prioritizing their own services or new gTLDs over Verisign’s offerings—could reduce marketing efforts and lower renewal rates.
- Geographic Concentration in China: Regulatory changes and political tensions in China have already caused a decline in demand for domain registrations; further restrictions or failure to maintain required government licenses could suspend registry services in that market.
- Short Seller Activity: Verisign has been and may continue to be a target of short sellers who may disseminate false or misleading information to lower the stock price, leading to volatility and the diversion of management attention.
3. Regulatory/Legal Risks
- ICANN Consensus Policies: Verisign is required to implement policies mandated by ICANN, which may impose substantial compliance costs, introduce new legal risks, or negatively affect Verisign’s competitive position.
- Data Privacy Compliance: New regulations like the EU’s NIS 2 directive or GDPR could force Verisign to obtain and maintain personal registrant information, creating significant compliance costs and potential liability for data protection failures.
- International Tax Regimes: The OECD’s guidance on the taxation of the digital economy and independent digital service taxes enacted by various countries could increase Verisign’s tax burden and adversely impact cash flow.
- Litigation Contingencies: Verisign is involved in various legal proceedings and investigations, including those related to DNS abuse mitigation. These are inherently unpredictable and could result in significant monetary damages or injunctive relief.
4. Financial Impact Map
Cybersecurity and DDoS Attacks → Revenue → Potential loss or delay in revenues due to service outages or failure to meet service level agreements. Registry Agreement Renewals → Revenue → Substantially all revenue is derived from .com and .net operations; loss of these rights would result in a material loss of revenue. Pricing Restrictions → Operating Results → Failure to seek or obtain permitted price increases due to Consensus Policies or Extraordinary Expenses could negatively affect operating results. Technological Obsolescence → Revenue → Shifts in user behavior or adoption of substitute technologies could decrease demand and renewal rates for domain names. International Tax Changes → Income Taxes → Changes in tax laws or the expiration of tax agreements could increase taxes and adversely impact financial condition and cash flow.
Recent Filings
| Form | Filed | Period |
|---|---|---|
| 8-K | Feb 2026 | — |
| 10-K | Feb 2026 | Dec 2025 |
| 10-Q | Oct 2025 | Sep 2025 |
| 14A | Apr 2025 | — |