AMN Healthcare Services vs Kelly Services
AMN and KELYA side by side, both in personnel supply services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AMN and KELYA compare
AMN Healthcare Services is the larger company, worth 3.1 times as much as Kelly Services ($1.5B against $480M).
AMN Healthcare Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (29.5% versus −7.7% for Kelly Services).
AMN Healthcare Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.1% compared with −3.1% at Kelly Services.
Kelly Services pays a dividend yielding 2.2%; AMN Healthcare Services does not pay one.
AMN Healthcare Services scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 6 for Kelly Services), 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 | AMN | KELYA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.5B | $480M |
| Share price | $37.90 | $13.81 |
| Change, 1 year | 118% | 55.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −68.0% | −21.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.72 | 0.87 |
| Employees | 2,664 | 3,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.8× | – |
| P/S | 0.4× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | 1.9× | 0.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.8× (better) | 8.4× |
| P/FCF | 4.5× | – |
| FCF yield | 22.3% (better) | −1.7% |
| Fair value | $55.46 | $20.03 |
| Margin of safety | 31.7% (better) | 31.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 29.5% (better) | −7.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.7% (better) | −1.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.4% (better) | 19.7% |
| Operating margin | 5.8% (better) | 0.27% |
| Net margin | 3.1% (better) | −3.1% |
| FCF margin | 9.3% (better) | −0.20% |
| Return on equity | 15.4% (better) | −11.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 9.8% (better) | 0.53% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.96 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.45 | – |
| Interest coverage | 6.1× (better) | 1.3× |
| Current ratio | 1.21 | 1.55 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.29 (better) | 2.78 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 2.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 120% | 75.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.87% | 23.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$114K (better) | −$106M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.1% | – |
Go deeper
- AMN stock overview
- AMN income statement
- AMN valuation and score
- KELYA stock overview
- KELYA income statement
- KELYA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.