Booz Allen Hamilton vs Genpact
BAH and G 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 G compare
Booz Allen Hamilton is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Genpact ($10.6B against $6.7B).
On earnings, Genpact is cheaper: it trades at 11.8× trailing earnings, against 13.9× for Booz Allen Hamilton.
Genpact grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus −7.3% for Booz Allen Hamilton).
Genpact keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.1% compared with 7.0% at Booz Allen Hamilton.
Both pay dividends: Booz Allen Hamilton yields 2.6% and Genpact 1.4%.
Genpact scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 19 for Booz Allen Hamilton), 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 | G |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.6B | $6.7B |
| Share price | $88.49 | $39.62 |
| Change, 1 year | 6.8% | 4.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 1.9% | −21.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.64 | 0.66 |
| Employees | 32K | 147K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 | 5 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 | 6 |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.9× | 11.8× (better) |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 1.3× |
| P/B | 8.9× | 2.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.5× | 9.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 9.5× (better) | 11.6× |
| PEG | 0.28 (better) | 0.63 |
| FCF yield | 10.5% (better) | 8.6% |
| Fair value | $127.13 | $56.35 |
| Margin of safety | 30.4% (better) | 29.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −7.3% | 6.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.4% (better) | 6.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −25.3% | 8.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −21.7% | 12.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.6% | 14.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 53.0% (better) | 36.5% |
| Operating margin | 9.5% | 14.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 7.0% | 11.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 10.1% | 10.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 68.6% (better) | 22.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 20.5% (better) | 18.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.27 | 0.45 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.78 | 0.85 (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.59 | 2.00 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.78 (better) | 3.50 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.6% (better) | 1.4% |
| Payout ratio | 35.9% | 20.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 11.5% | 11.8% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 4.2% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 6.8% (better) | 1.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.3% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 35.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$64.1K (better) | −$8.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.8% | 10.2% |
Go deeper
- BAH stock overview
- BAH income statement
- BAH valuation and score
- G stock overview
- G income statement
- G valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.