Acacia Research vs Dolby Laboratories
ACTG and DLB side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ACTG and DLB compare
Dolby Laboratories is the larger company, worth 15 times as much as Acacia Research ($6.1B against $406M).
Dolby Laboratories grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.55% versus −3.7% for Acacia Research).
Dolby Laboratories keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.7% compared with −6.5% at Acacia Research.
Dolby Laboratories pays a dividend yielding 2.2%; Acacia Research does not pay one.
Dolby Laboratories scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 5 for Acacia Research), 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 | ACTG | DLB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $406M | $6.1B |
| Share price | $4.16 | $64.59 |
| Change, 1 year | 12.1% | −1.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −22.1% | −27.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.79 | 0.75 |
| Employees | 986 | 2,051 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 27.5× |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 4.5× |
| P/B | 0.8× (better) | 2.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.5× (better) | 16.2× |
| P/FCF | – | 15.4× |
| PEG | – | 2.09 |
| FCF yield | – | 6.5% |
| Fair value | $3.98 | $60.87 |
| Margin of safety | −4.6% (better) | −6.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.7% | 0.55% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 57.1% (better) | 3.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −469% | −14.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −460% | −13.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −31.7% | 3.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.2% | 87.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | −6.0% | 17.7% (better) |
| Net margin | −6.5% | 16.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 29.0% |
| Return on equity | −3.4% | 8.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −6.0% | 10.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.03 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −20.61 | – |
| Interest coverage | −2.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 5.64 (better) | 3.19 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.58 | 8.62 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 59.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 4 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 8.4% |
| Buyback yield | – | 3.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 6.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.2% | 66.1% |
| Held by insiders | 63.9% | 37.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$458K (better) | −$11.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.5% | 10.3% |
Go deeper
- ACTG stock overview
- ACTG income statement
- ACTG valuation and score
- DLB stock overview
- DLB income statement
- DLB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.