Aecom vs Fluor
ACM and FLR side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ACM and FLR compare
Aecom is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Fluor ($9.1B against $6.6B).
Fluor grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.9% versus −4.2% for Aecom).
Aecom keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1.9% compared with −7.2% at Fluor.
Aecom pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; Fluor does not pay one.
Fluor scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 8 for Aecom), 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 | ACM | FLR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.1B | $6.6B |
| Share price | $70.50 | $48.98 |
| Change, 1 year | −46.9% | 7.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −3.5% | 119% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 1.07 |
| Employees | 51K | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.3× | – |
| P/S | 0.6× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 4.1× | 2.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.4× | 8.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 44.6× | – |
| PEG | 1.32 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.2% (better) | −6.5% |
| Fair value | $66.83 | $82.13 |
| Margin of safety | −5.5% | 40.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.2% | 1.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.0% (better) | −0.36% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −53.1% (better) | −134% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −52.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 5.7% (better) | 3.3% |
| Operating margin | 4.1% (better) | 3.2% |
| Net margin | 1.9% (better) | −7.2% |
| FCF margin | 1.3% (better) | −2.7% |
| Return on equity | 12.3% (better) | −29.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 14.4% | 25.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.24 | 0.41 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.39 (better) | −3.55 |
| Interest coverage | 3.1× | 12.3× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.06 | 1.83 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.87 | 4.24 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 2 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% | – |
| Payout ratio | 52.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | 7.1% | 23.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 8.9% | 23.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.9% | 97.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.66% | 1.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.5M (better) | −$4.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.6% | 9.5% |
Go deeper
- ACM stock overview
- ACM income statement
- ACM valuation and score
- FLR stock overview
- FLR income statement
- FLR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.