Alamo vs BrightView
ALG and BV side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ALG and BV compare
Alamo is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as BrightView ($1.7B against $914M).
Alamo grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.8% versus 1.5% for BrightView).
Alamo keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.7% compared with 0.04% at BrightView.
Alamo pays a dividend yielding 0.96%; BrightView does not pay one.
Alamo scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 5 for BrightView), 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 | ALG | BV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.7B | $914M |
| Share price | $141.71 | $9.87 |
| Change, 1 year | −14.3% | −16.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −6.7% | −36.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.86 | 1.05 |
| Employees | 3,800 | 18K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.1× | – |
| P/S | 1.0× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 1.5× | 0.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.2× (better) | 24.1× |
| P/FCF | 12.6× | – |
| PEG | 113.50 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.9% (better) | −4.4% |
| Fair value | $151.77 | $3.59 |
| Margin of safety | 6.6% (better) | −175% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.8% (better) | 1.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.6% (better) | 1.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −33.3% (better) | −98.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −33.5% (better) | −385% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 12.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 22.9% (better) | 20.4% |
| Operating margin | 6.9% (better) | 2.8% |
| Net margin | 4.7% (better) | 0.04% |
| FCF margin | 8.3% (better) | −1.5% |
| Return on equity | 6.7% (better) | 0.08% |
| Return on invested capital | 7.3% (better) | 1.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.20 (better) | 0.72 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.01 (better) | 11.84 |
| Interest coverage | 6.6× (better) | 1.4× |
| Current ratio | 4.19 (better) | 1.29 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.64 (better) | 1.23 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.96% | – |
| Payout ratio | 20.5% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 11 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 18.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.56% | 6.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.5% | 6.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.9% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 26.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$964K | $316K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.2% | 6.1% |
Go deeper
- ALG stock overview
- ALG income statement
- ALG valuation and score
- BV stock overview
- BV income statement
- BV valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.