Agilent Technologies vs Waters
A and WAT side by side, both in laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How A and WAT compare
Agilent Technologies and Waters are about the same size, with market caps of $49.3B and $45.5B.
On earnings, Agilent Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 34.5× trailing earnings, against 115× for Waters.
Waters grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (52.5% versus 8.6% for Agilent Technologies).
Agilent Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.5% compared with 3.6% at Waters.
Agilent Technologies pays a dividend yielding 0.58%; Waters does not pay one.
Agilent Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 9 for Waters), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | A | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $49.3B | $45.5B |
| Share price | $174.87 | $462.72 |
| Change, 1 year | 22.1% | 34.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 11.8% | 34.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.04 | 0.93 |
| Employees | 18K | 7,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 21 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 34.5× (better) | 115× |
| P/S | 6.7× (better) | 9.8× |
| P/B | 6.7× | 3.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 25.1× (better) | 151× |
| P/FCF | 38.9× | – |
| PEG | 11.43 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.6% | – |
| Fair value | $149.03 | $87.10 |
| Margin of safety | −17.3% (better) | −431% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.6% | 52.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.4% | 6.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 18.0% (better) | −74.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 18.7% (better) | −63.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.7% (better) | 5.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 53.8% | – |
| Operating margin | 22.2% (better) | 7.1% |
| Net margin | 19.5% (better) | 3.6% |
| FCF margin | 17.2% | – |
| Return on equity | 21.0% (better) | 1.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 26.4% (better) | 2.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.04 (better) | 0.32 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.76 | 13.19 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 15.5× (better) | 2.2× |
| Current ratio | 2.05 (better) | 1.86 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.79 (better) | 3.76 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.58% | – |
| Payout ratio | 19.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 10 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.77% (better) | 0.03% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.4% (better) | 0.03% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.8% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 0.29% | 0.10% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.2M | −$992K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.9% | 3.5% |
Go deeper
- A stock overview
- A income statement
- A valuation and score
- WAT stock overview
- WAT income statement
- WAT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.