Affiliated Managers vs Federated Hermes
AMG and FHI side by side, both in services allied with the exchange of securities. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AMG and FHI compare
Affiliated Managers is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as Federated Hermes ($9.9B against $4.4B).
On earnings, Federated Hermes is cheaper: it trades at 10.6× trailing earnings, against 13.5× for Affiliated Managers.
Federated Hermes grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.2% versus 11.8% for Affiliated Managers).
Affiliated Managers keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 37.7% compared with 21.3% at Federated Hermes.
Both pay dividends: Affiliated Managers yields 0.01% and Federated Hermes 2.5%.
Federated Hermes scores higher on the StockData Score (23 against 15 for Affiliated Managers), 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 | AMG | FHI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.9B | $4.4B |
| Share price | $381.57 | $58.48 |
| Change, 1 year | 60.4% | 22.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 105% | 69.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.12 | 0.68 |
| Employees | 5,600 | 2,091 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 23 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.5× | 10.6× (better) |
| P/S | 4.3× | 2.2× (better) |
| P/B | 3.2× (better) | 3.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 7.3× |
| P/FCF | 9.3× (better) | 11.3× |
| PEG | – | 0.43 |
| FCF yield | 10.8% (better) | 8.8% |
| Fair value | $411.86 | $76.31 |
| Margin of safety | 7.4% | 23.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.8% | 13.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.46% | 4.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 93.6% (better) | 10.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 118% (better) | 15.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 39.3% (better) | 9.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 27.8% |
| Net margin | 37.7% (better) | 21.3% |
| FCF margin | 46.9% (better) | 19.6% |
| Return on equity | 27.3% | 33.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 51.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Current ratio | – | 2.48 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.56 | 5.35 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.01% | 2.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 26.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −35.2% | −8.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 8.0% (better) | 6.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 8.1% | 8.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.6% | 89.1% |
| Held by insiders | 3.7% | 4.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$9.5M (better) | −$13.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 5.7% |
Go deeper
- AMG stock overview
- AMG income statement
- AMG valuation and score
- FHI stock overview
- FHI income statement
- FHI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.