Amphenol vs Vertiv
APH and VRT 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 VRT compare
Amphenol is the larger company, worth 2.5 times as much as Vertiv ($196B against $79.5B).
On earnings, Amphenol is cheaper: it trades at 34.6× trailing earnings, against 38.6× for Vertiv.
Amphenol grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (57.6% versus 35.3% for Vertiv).
Amphenol keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.0% compared with 16.0% at Vertiv.
Both pay dividends: Amphenol yields 0.63% and Vertiv 0.12%.
Amphenol scores higher on the StockData Score (23 against 20 for Vertiv), 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 | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $196B | $79.5B |
| Share price | $79.31 | $206.51 |
| Change, 1 year | 10.3% | 9.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 273% | 665% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.32 | 2.17 |
| Employees | 170K | 34K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 23 (better) | 20 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 34.6× (better) | 38.6× |
| P/S | 5.9× (better) | 6.1× |
| P/B | 11.4× (better) | 14.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 19.7× (better) | 25.8× |
| P/FCF | 38.2× | 25.3× (better) |
| PEG | 1.16 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.6% | 4.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $85.54 | $234.92 |
| Margin of safety | 7.3% | 12.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 57.6% (better) | 35.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 21.8% (better) | 18.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 55.2% | 103% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 53.0% | 102% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 27.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.8% (better) | 38.1% |
| Operating margin | 27.7% (better) | 20.1% |
| Net margin | 18.0% (better) | 16.0% |
| FCF margin | 15.5% | 24.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 40.0% | 46.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 27.8% | 42.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.04 | 0.53 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.19 (better) | −0.19 |
| Interest coverage | 12.0× | 73.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.94 (better) | 1.39 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.93 (better) | 5.39 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.63% (better) | 0.12% |
| Payout ratio | 18.9% | 4.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 14 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 23.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.41% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.0% (better) | 0.12% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.7% | 81.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.27% | 1.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$406M | −$127M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.1% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- APH stock overview
- APH income statement
- APH valuation and score
- VRT stock overview
- VRT income statement
- VRT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.