Amphenol vs Jabil
APH and JBL side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How APH and JBL compare
Amphenol is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Jabil ($97.8B against $28.6B).
On earnings, Jabil is cheaper: it trades at 34.0× trailing earnings, against 34.6× for Amphenol.
Amphenol grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (57.6% versus 17.8% for Jabil).
Amphenol keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.0% compared with 2.6% at Jabil.
Both pay dividends: Amphenol yields 0.63% and Jabil 0.12%.
Amphenol scores higher on the StockData Score (24 against 12 for Jabil), 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 | APH | JBL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $97.8B | $28.6B |
| Share price | $79.30 | $272.72 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.5% | 22.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 289% | 318% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.31 | 1.31 |
| Employees | 170K | 30K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 24 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 34.6× | 34.0× (better) |
| P/S | 3.0× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 5.7× (better) | 21.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.4× (better) | 14.3× |
| P/FCF | 19.1× (better) | 21.9× |
| PEG | 1.16 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.2% (better) | 4.6% |
| Fair value | $131.09 | $211.36 |
| Margin of safety | 39.5% (better) | −29.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 57.6% (better) | 17.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 21.8% (better) | 1.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 55.2% (better) | 49.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 53.0% | 55.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 27.8% | 76.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.8% (better) | 9.2% |
| Operating margin | 27.7% (better) | 4.3% |
| Net margin | 18.0% (better) | 2.6% |
| FCF margin | 15.5% (better) | 3.9% |
| Return on equity | 40.0% | 66.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 27.8% | 35.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.04 (better) | 2.55 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.19 | 0.94 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 12.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.94 (better) | 0.98 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.95 (better) | 2.77 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.63% (better) | 0.12% |
| Payout ratio | 18.9% | 4.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 14 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 23.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.82% | 3.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.5% | 3.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | – | 97.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.47% | 2.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$416M | −$60.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- APH stock overview
- APH income statement
- APH valuation and score
- JBL stock overview
- JBL income statement
- JBL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.