Booz Allen Hamilton vs FTI Consulting
BAH and FCN side by side, both in management and public relations services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BAH and FCN compare
Booz Allen Hamilton is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as FTI Consulting ($10.6B against $5.0B).
On earnings, Booz Allen Hamilton is cheaper: it trades at 13.9× trailing earnings, against 22.8× for FTI Consulting.
FTI Consulting grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.8% versus −7.3% for Booz Allen Hamilton).
Booz Allen Hamilton keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.0% compared with 5.9% at FTI Consulting.
Booz Allen Hamilton pays a dividend yielding 2.6%; FTI Consulting does not pay one.
Booz Allen Hamilton scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 12 for FTI Consulting), 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 | BAH | FCN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.6B | $5.0B |
| Share price | $88.49 | $182.84 |
| Change, 1 year | 6.8% | 8.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 1.9% | 26.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.64 | 0.15 |
| Employees | 32K | 8,118 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.9× (better) | 22.8× |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 1.3× |
| P/B | 8.9× | 3.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.5× (better) | 14.5× |
| P/FCF | 9.5× (better) | 14.3× |
| PEG | 0.28 (better) | 2.93 |
| FCF yield | 10.5% (better) | 7.0% |
| Fair value | $127.13 | $172.84 |
| Margin of safety | 30.4% (better) | −5.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −7.3% | 7.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.4% | 9.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −25.3% | −12.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −21.7% | 2.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.6% (better) | 7.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 53.0% (better) | 32.2% |
| Operating margin | 9.5% (better) | 8.8% |
| Net margin | 7.0% (better) | 5.9% |
| FCF margin | 10.1% (better) | 8.9% |
| Return on equity | 68.6% (better) | 15.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 20.5% (better) | 12.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.27 | 0.64 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.78 | 1.90 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 9.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.59 | 1.72 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.78 (better) | 3.72 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.6% | – |
| Payout ratio | 35.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 11.5% | – |
| Buyback yield | 4.2% | 13.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 6.8% | 13.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.3% | 110% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 2.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$64.1K | $490K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.8% | 11.9% |
Go deeper
- BAH stock overview
- BAH income statement
- BAH valuation and score
- FCN stock overview
- FCN income statement
- FCN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.