Acacia Research vs LandBridge
ACTG and LB 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 LB compare
LandBridge is the larger company, worth 14 times as much as Acacia Research ($5.6B against $404M).
LandBridge grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (37.3% versus −3.7% for Acacia Research).
LandBridge keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.1% compared with −6.5% at Acacia Research.
LandBridge pays a dividend yielding 0.63%; Acacia Research does not pay one.
LandBridge scores higher on the StockData Score (10 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 | LB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $404M | $5.6B |
| Share price | $4.14 | $72.90 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.4% | −2.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −22.5% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | −0.57 |
| Employees | 986 | 5 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 62.3× |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 22.9× |
| P/B | 0.8× (better) | 14.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.3× (better) | 39.6× |
| P/FCF | – | 33.7× |
| FCF yield | – | 3.0% |
| Fair value | $3.98 | $19.11 |
| Margin of safety | −4.0% (better) | −281% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.7% | 37.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 57.1% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −469% | 71.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −460% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −31.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.2% | – |
| Operating margin | −6.0% | 63.4% (better) |
| Net margin | −6.5% | 17.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 67.8% |
| Return on equity | −3.4% | 12.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −6.0% | 15.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.03 (better) | 1.94 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −20.61 | 4.28 (better) |
| Interest coverage | −2.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 5.64 (better) | 2.78 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.58 | 4.84 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.63% |
| Payout ratio | – | 147% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.63% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.2% | 36.9% |
| Held by insiders | 63.9% | – |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$458K (better) | −$191M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.5% | – |
Go deeper
- ACTG stock overview
- ACTG income statement
- ACTG valuation and score
- LB stock overview
- LB income statement
- LB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.