Artisan Partners Asset Management vs Blue Owl Capital
APAM and OWL 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 APAM and OWL compare
Blue Owl Capital is the larger company, worth 5.4 times as much as Artisan Partners Asset Management ($16.1B against $3.0B).
On earnings, Artisan Partners Asset Management is cheaper: it trades at 8.6× trailing earnings, against 73.8× for Blue Owl Capital.
Artisan Partners Asset Management grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.7% versus 8.1% for Blue Owl Capital).
Artisan Partners Asset Management keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 24.5% compared with 7.7% at Blue Owl Capital.
Both pay dividends: Artisan Partners Asset Management yields 11.0% and Blue Owl Capital 8.8%.
Artisan Partners Asset Management scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 8 for Blue Owl Capital), 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 | APAM | OWL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.0B | $16.1B |
| Share price | $36.58 | $10.33 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.1% | −37.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −27.4% | −39.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.33 | 1.70 |
| Employees | 567 | 1,365 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 8.6× (better) | 73.8× |
| P/S | 2.4× (better) | 13.1× |
| P/B | 6.7× (better) | 8.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.1× | – |
| P/FCF | 9.0× (better) | 10.7× |
| PEG | 0.77 | – |
| FCF yield | 11.1% (better) | 9.3% |
| Fair value | $55.75 | $5.78 |
| Margin of safety | 34.4% (better) | −78.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.7% (better) | 8.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.9% | 17.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 16.5% | 82.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.6% | 133% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 3.6% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 33.4% | – |
| Net margin | 24.5% (better) | 7.7% |
| FCF margin | 26.0% | 122% (better) |
| Return on equity | 73.1% (better) | 4.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 537% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | 48.7× | – |
| Altman Z-score | 3.84 (better) | 1.29 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 11.0% (better) | 8.8% |
| Payout ratio | 93.0% | 650% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 1.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.48% |
| Shareholder yield | 11.0% (better) | 9.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.9% | 41.4% |
| Held by insiders | 11.1% | 65.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$298K | $7.1M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.0% | 19.5% |
Go deeper
- APAM stock overview
- APAM income statement
- APAM valuation and score
- OWL stock overview
- OWL income statement
- OWL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.