Concrete Pumping vs Limbach
BBCP and LMB side by side, both in construction special trade contractors. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BBCP and LMB compare
Limbach is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Concrete Pumping ($690M against $516M).
On earnings, Limbach is cheaper: it trades at 23.1× trailing earnings, against 64.0× for Concrete Pumping.
Limbach grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (23.7% versus 6.9% for Concrete Pumping).
Limbach keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.4% compared with 2.4% at Concrete Pumping.
Concrete Pumping pays a dividend yielding 1.3%; Limbach does not pay one.
Limbach scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 5 for Concrete Pumping), 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 | BBCP | LMB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $516M | $690M |
| Share price | $10.24 | $57.86 |
| Change, 1 year | 63.1% | −25.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 14.2% | 704% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.75 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 1,530 | 1,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 64.0× | 23.1× (better) |
| P/S | 1.2× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 1.9× (better) | 3.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.9× (better) | 12.3× |
| P/FCF | 33.1× | 13.6× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.32 |
| FCF yield | 3.0% | 7.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $7.88 | $56.29 |
| Margin of safety | −29.9% | −2.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.9% | 23.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.2% (better) | 2.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −1.2% (better) | −14.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −5.9% (better) | −14.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 35.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.3% (better) | 23.6% |
| Operating margin | 11.5% (better) | 5.7% |
| Net margin | 2.4% | 4.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.7% | 7.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 3.9% | 16.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 4.9% | 16.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.56 | 0.20 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.73 | 0.40 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 1.4× | 11.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.71 (better) | 1.49 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.09 | 4.67 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.8% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.0% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 35.5% | 80.6% |
| Held by insiders | 27.2% | 9.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$4.3M | −$2.6M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 10.6% |
Go deeper
- BBCP stock overview
- BBCP income statement
- BBCP valuation and score
- LMB stock overview
- LMB income statement
- LMB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.