Amentum vs Leidos
AMTM and LDOS side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AMTM and LDOS compare
Leidos is the larger company, worth 3.1 times as much as Amentum ($16.4B against $5.4B).
On earnings, Leidos is cheaper: it trades at 12.2× trailing earnings, against 26.4× for Amentum.
Amentum grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.4% versus 3.4% for Leidos).
Leidos keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.8% compared with 1.4% at Amentum.
Leidos pays a dividend yielding 1.3%; Amentum does not pay one.
Leidos scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 9 for Amentum), 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 | AMTM | LDOS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.4B | $16.4B |
| Share price | $21.95 | $130.53 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.4% | −32.4% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 41.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.21 | 0.74 |
| Employees | 50K | 47K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.4× | 12.2× (better) |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 0.9× |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 3.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.8× | 9.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 11.3× | 7.6× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.39 |
| FCF yield | 8.8% | 13.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $27.54 | $220.74 |
| Margin of safety | 20.3% | 40.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.4% (better) | 3.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 6.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 292% (better) | −1.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 113% (better) | 1.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 20.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 10.2% | 17.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 11.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.4% | 7.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.4% | 12.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 4.5% | 27.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 5.5% | 16.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.81 (better) | 1.14 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.65 | 2.27 (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.52 | 1.63 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.02 | 3.13 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 7 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 3.7% |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 5.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.6% | 79.6% |
| Held by insiders | 32.3% | 0.83% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$3.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.5% | 3.1% |
Go deeper
- AMTM stock overview
- AMTM income statement
- AMTM valuation and score
- LDOS stock overview
- LDOS income statement
- LDOS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.