Fidelity National Information Services vs Figma
Full Comparison — Revenue, Growth & Market Share (2026)
Quick Verdict
Based on our 2026 analysis, Figma has a stronger overall growth score (9.0/10) compared to its rival. However, both companies bring distinct strategic advantages depending on the metric evaluated — market cap, revenue trajectory, or global reach. Read the full breakdown below to understand exactly where each company leads.
Fidelity National Information Services
Key Metrics
- Founded1968
- HeadquartersJacksonville, Florida
- CEOStephanie Ferris
- Net WorthN/A
- Market Cap$35000000.0T
- Employees55,000
Figma
Key Metrics
- Founded2012
- HeadquartersSan Francisco
- CEODylan Field
- Net WorthN/A
- Market Cap$10000000.0T
- Employees1,500
Revenue Comparison (USD)
The revenue trajectory of Fidelity National Information Services versus Figma highlights the diverging financial power of these two market players. Below is the year-by-year breakdown of reported revenues, which provides a clear picture of which company has demonstrated more consistent monetization momentum through 2026.
| Year | Fidelity National Information Services | Figma |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 | $9.1T | $12.0B |
| 2018 | $8.4T | $25.0B |
| 2019 | $10.3T | $75.0B |
| 2020 | $12.6T | $200.0B |
| 2021 | $13.9T | $350.0B |
| 2022 | $14.5T | $600.0B |
| 2023 | $14.7T | $750.0B |
| 2024 | — | $950.0B |
Strategic Head-to-Head Analysis
Fidelity National Information Services Market Stance
Fidelity National Information Services, universally known as FIS, occupies a rare and commanding position in the global financial technology landscape. It is not merely a vendor to banks — it is, in many respects, the invisible operating system of the modern banking world. When a consumer swipes a debit card at a grocery store in Munich, checks their mortgage balance through a community bank app in Ohio, or executes a securities trade through a mid-tier brokerage in Singapore, there is a meaningful probability that FIS infrastructure is processing that transaction behind the scenes. Founded in 1968 as Systematics Inc., the company spent its early decades providing data processing services to regional banks across the American South. This humble origin belies what FIS would eventually become: a $40+ billion enterprise that serves over 20,000 clients in more than 130 countries. The transformation was neither organic nor linear — it was engineered through a sequence of strategically calculated acquisitions that redefined the competitive boundaries of financial technology. The company's modern identity was substantially shaped by its 2006 merger with Certegy, which added payment processing and card services to its existing core banking portfolio. The 2010 acquisition of Metavante broadened FIS's reach into digital banking and treasury management. But it was the 2019 acquisition of Worldpay for approximately $43 billion — the largest fintech deal ever executed at that time — that transformed FIS from a banking software specialist into a comprehensive payments infrastructure company with direct exposure to global commerce flows. Understanding FIS requires appreciating the structural stickiness of its business. Core banking systems are not replaced casually. A mid-sized bank that has run its deposit ledger, loan origination, and general ledger on an FIS platform for fifteen years faces an existential risk calculus when evaluating migration to a competitor. The data conversion complexity alone can span years of planning and tens of millions in implementation costs. This switching cost dynamic is not a minor competitive moat — it is the foundational reason FIS has maintained long-term customer relationships with institutions ranging from global systemically important banks to credit unions with under $100 million in assets. FIS operates through three primary reportable segments: Banking Solutions, Capital Market Solutions, and Corporate and Other. The Banking Solutions segment is the historical core of the enterprise, providing core processing, digital banking, payments, and risk and compliance tools. Capital Market Solutions serves asset managers, broker-dealers, hedge funds, and exchanges with front-to-back office technology that handles everything from order management to post-trade settlement. The Worldpay merchant solutions business, which FIS divested a majority stake in during 2023, represented the consumer-facing payment acceptance layer. The Worldpay divestiture deserves careful analysis because it signals a strategic recalibration. After spending $43 billion to acquire Worldpay in 2019, FIS sold a 55% stake to private equity firm GTCR in 2023, valuing the business at approximately $18.5 billion — a significant impairment relative to acquisition cost. Management framed this as a focus sharpening exercise, arguing that the merchant acquiring business had different growth dynamics, margin profiles, and capital requirements than the institutional financial technology segments. Critics viewed it as an acknowledgment that the integration had underdelivered on its original synergy thesis. Whatever the interpretation, the transaction fundamentally reshapes FIS's identity and its addressable market going forward. The company's scale creates network effects that are difficult to replicate. When FIS processes billions of transactions annually across thousands of financial institutions, it accumulates data and operational intelligence that informs fraud detection models, risk scoring algorithms, and product development priorities in ways that smaller competitors simply cannot match. A community bank running on FIS infrastructure benefits from fraud pattern recognition derived from transaction flows across an entire global network — a capability that would cost hundreds of millions to replicate independently. From a geographic perspective, FIS has significant revenue concentration in North America, which accounts for roughly 60% of total revenue. Europe, the Middle East, and Africa represent the second-largest region, with Asia-Pacific contributing a growing but still minority share. This geographic distribution reflects both the historical development of the company and the structural reality that North American financial institutions remain the world's largest consumers of enterprise banking technology. However, it also represents a strategic vulnerability — overexposure to mature markets with lower growth rates compared to emerging financial systems in Asia and Latin America. The regulatory environment in which FIS operates is simultaneously a barrier to entry and a source of ongoing compliance burden. Financial technology providers that embed themselves in bank infrastructure must satisfy not only their own regulatory obligations but also the due diligence requirements of thousands of regulated institution clients. This compliance infrastructure — spanning data residency requirements, audit certifications, business continuity standards, and operational risk frameworks — represents a massive fixed investment that new entrants cannot easily replicate but that established players like FIS must continuously maintain and update.
Figma Market Stance
Figma's story is one of the most instructive in modern enterprise software—a company that succeeded not by building a marginally better version of an existing tool, but by rethinking the fundamental architecture of how design software should work and betting that the browser was ready to host creative professional workflows that had always required native desktop applications. That bet, made by Dylan Field and Evan Wallace at Brown University in 2012, turned out to be exactly right, and the consequences reshaped an entire software category. The design tools market that Figma entered was dominated by Adobe—through Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign—and by Sketch, a macOS-native vector design application that had gained rapid adoption among UX and product designers after launching in 2010. Sketch's success was itself disruptive: it was purpose-built for digital product design in a way that Adobe's tools, originally conceived for print and photo editing, were not. But Sketch had a structural limitation that Figma identified as its strategic opening: Sketch was a desktop application, which meant that collaboration required file sharing via Dropbox or email, version control was manual and error-prone, and real-time co-editing was simply impossible. Design was, in the Sketch era, an inherently solitary activity punctuated by painful handoff moments. Figma's foundational thesis was that design should be collaborative in the same way that Google Docs made document editing collaborative—simultaneously, in real time, in a browser, with no installation required. The technical execution of this vision was extraordinarily difficult. Rendering complex vector graphics at professional quality in a browser, maintaining 60 frames-per-second performance across dozens of simultaneous editors, and doing it all without the latency that would make real-time collaboration feel broken—these were engineering challenges that required the team to build new rendering technology from scratch using WebGL, a low-level graphics API that most web developers never touch. Evan Wallace's computer graphics expertise, developed through his academic work at Brown, was essential to solving these rendering challenges and represents one of the most direct examples of technical co-founder advantage in recent startup history. The product launched publicly in 2016 after four years of development, entering a market where Sketch had established significant momentum but where Adobe's UX design product—Adobe XD—was still nascent. Figma's initial growth was driven by individual designers and small teams who experienced the collaboration capabilities and spread the product within their organizations. The viral growth mechanics were built into the product: when a designer shared a Figma link with a developer or product manager, that recipient could open the design in their browser without creating an account, experiencing the product's quality firsthand. This frictionless sharing created a discovery and acquisition loop that no desktop-native tool could replicate. The product-market fit was validated rapidly as design teams at technology companies—whose product development workflows required constant collaboration between designers, engineers, product managers, and stakeholders—adopted Figma as their shared source of design truth. Unlike desktop tools where design files lived on individual machines, Figma files existed in the cloud, accessible to anyone with a link, always showing the current version. Developers could inspect design specifications—spacing, typography, color values, asset exports—directly in the browser without waiting for designers to generate handoff documentation. Product managers could comment on designs in context. Executives could review prototypes without installing software. The entire product development workflow was transformed by making design a shared, accessible, real-time space. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 was an unexpected accelerant. As remote work became mandatory for knowledge workers globally, the limitations of desktop-native, file-sharing-dependent design tools became acutely apparent. Teams that had managed Sketch-based workflows with in-person collaboration found remote coordination painful. Figma, designed for exactly this distributed, browser-based collaboration scenario, experienced a dramatic acceleration in adoption that compressed years of market penetration into months. The company's annual recurring revenue reportedly grew from approximately $75 million in 2019 to over $200 million in 2020—a growth rate that reflected both organic demand and pandemic-driven workflow disruption. The September 2022 announcement that Adobe would acquire Figma for $20 billion in cash and stock—at approximately 50 times ARR, one of the highest revenue multiples ever paid for a software company—validated the strategic importance of the platform that Field and Wallace had built. Adobe's willingness to pay $20 billion for a company with approximately $400 million in ARR reflected both Figma's growth trajectory and Adobe's recognition that Figma represented an existential competitive threat to its Creative Cloud franchise. If Figma's collaborative platform model continued to gain adoption, it had the potential to displace Adobe as the primary tool for digital product design and eventually expand into adjacent creative categories. The acquisition was blocked by the United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority and the European Commission in December 2023, citing concerns that the deal would eliminate a significant competitive threat to Adobe's design tool dominance. The regulatory rejection—which Adobe had not anticipated—returned Figma to independence with a $1 billion termination fee from Adobe and renewed focus on its standalone growth strategy. Field, who had agreed to step back from an operational role under the acquisition structure, returned to active leadership of an independent company with significant resources, a dominant market position, and a clear mandate to continue disrupting the design tools category.
Business Model Comparison
Understanding the core revenue mechanics of Fidelity National Information Services vs Figma is essential for evaluating their long-term sustainability. A stronger business model typically correlates with higher margins, more predictable cash flows, and greater investor confidence.
| Dimension | Fidelity National Information Services | Figma |
|---|---|---|
| Business Model | FIS generates revenue through a multi-layered model that combines recurring subscription fees, transaction-based processing charges, and professional services engagements. This revenue architecture pr | Figma's business model is a textbook execution of product-led growth (PLG) combined with enterprise expansion—a model where individual user adoption creates the wedge for organizational sales, and whe |
| Growth Strategy | FIS's growth strategy in the post-Worldpay era centers on three interconnected priorities: deepening penetration within existing banking clients, accelerating cloud and SaaS migration, and expanding i | Figma's growth strategy is built on three interconnected pillars: product-led viral growth that converts individual adoption into organizational deployment, geographic expansion into international mar |
| Competitive Edge | FIS's competitive advantage is structural rather than transient — rooted in switching costs, scale economics, and ecosystem depth that cannot be quickly replicated by even well-funded competitors. | Figma's competitive advantages are architectural, behavioral, and network-based—rooted in decisions made at the product's founding that competitors with existing codebases and user bases cannot easily |
| Industry | Technology | Technology |
Revenue & Monetization Deep-Dive
When analyzing revenue, it's critical to look beyond top-line numbers and understand the quality of earnings. Fidelity National Information Services relies primarily on FIS generates revenue through a multi-layered model that combines recurring subscription fees, trans for revenue generation, which positions it differently than Figma, which has Figma's business model is a textbook execution of product-led growth (PLG) combined with enterprise .
In 2026, the battle for market share increasingly hinges on recurring revenue, ecosystem lock-in, and the ability to monetize data and platform network effects. Both companies are actively investing in these areas, but their trajectories differ meaningfully — as reflected in their growth scores and historical revenue tables above.
Growth Strategy & Future Outlook
The strategic roadmap for both companies reveals contrasting investment philosophies. Fidelity National Information Services is FIS's growth strategy in the post-Worldpay era centers on three interconnected priorities: deepening penetration within existing banking clients, acce — a posture that signals confidence in its existing moat while preparing for the next phase of scale.
Figma, in contrast, appears focused on Figma's growth strategy is built on three interconnected pillars: product-led viral growth that converts individual adoption into organizational deplo. According to our 2026 analysis, the winner of this rivalry will be whichever company best integrates AI-driven efficiencies while maintaining brand equity and customer trust — two factors increasingly difficult to separate in today's competitive landscape.
SWOT Comparison
A SWOT analysis reveals the internal strengths and weaknesses alongside external opportunities and threats for both companies. This framework highlights where each organization has durable advantages and where they face critical strategic risks heading into 2026.
- • Core banking platform switching costs are structurally high — client migrations span years and cost
- • FIS serves over 20,000 financial institutions across 130+ countries, creating unmatched scale that d
- • Legacy platform technical debt across core banking products slows innovation velocity and makes it d
- • The $43 billion Worldpay acquisition, subsequently partially divested at an implied valuation near $
- • Artificial intelligence integration into fraud detection, credit risk modeling, and compliance monit
- • Global core banking modernization represents a multi-billion dollar replacement cycle as financial i
- • Well-funded cloud-native core banking challengers including Thought Machine, Mambu, and Finxact are
- • Rising interest rates and macroeconomic uncertainty constrain financial institution technology budge
- • The Figma Community ecosystem—hosting millions of shared UI kits, design system templates, icon libr
- • Figma's browser-native architecture—built on WebGL for professional-grade vector rendering without i
- • Figma's dependency on internet connectivity for its core functionality creates limitations in low-ba
- • As a private company without public financial reporting, Figma's financial performance, profitabilit
- • The development tooling expansion—through Figma Dev Mode, code component inspection, and integration
- • Generative AI integration into the design workflow—enabling AI-powered component generation from tex
- • Canva's expansion upmarket from its base of 135 million monthly active users represents a competitiv
- • AI-native design generation tools—capable of producing UI mockups, component libraries, and design s
Final Verdict: Fidelity National Information Services vs Figma (2026)
Both Fidelity National Information Services and Figma are significant forces in their respective markets. Based on our 2026 analysis across revenue trajectory, business model sustainability, growth strategy, and market positioning:
- Fidelity National Information Services leads in established market presence and stability.
- Figma leads in growth score and strategic momentum.
🏆 Overall edge: Figma — scoring 9.0/10 on our proprietary growth index, indicating stronger historical performance and future expansion potential.
Explore full company profiles