Brinks vs Hub
BCO and HUBG side by side, both in transportation services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BCO and HUBG compare
Brinks is the larger company, worth 2622 times as much as Hub ($4.2B against $1.6M).
Brinks grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.1% versus −5.8% for Hub).
Brinks keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.3% compared with 2.8% at Hub.
Both pay dividends: Brinks yields 0.99% and Hub 1.9%.
Brinks scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 13 for Hub), 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 | BCO | HUBG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.2B | $1.6M |
| Share price | $102.71 | $26.71 |
| Change, 1 year | −8.9% | −25.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 45.8% | −35.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.83 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 65K | 6,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.7× | – |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.0× (better) |
| P/B | 13.6× | 0.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.8× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 10.7× | 0.0× (better) |
| PEG | 2.49 | – |
| FCF yield | 9.3% | 7029% (better) |
| Fair value | $126.34 | $31092.10 |
| Margin of safety | 18.7% | 99.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.1% (better) | −5.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.3% (better) | 1.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.2% (better) | −3.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 16.1% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 72.2% (better) | 1.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 26.4% | – |
| Operating margin | 10.5% (better) | 3.8% |
| Net margin | 3.3% (better) | 2.8% |
| FCF margin | 7.2% (better) | 3.0% |
| Return on equity | 64.0% (better) | 6.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 12.7% (better) | 6.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 13.66 | 0.15 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.89 | 0.45 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.3× | 11.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.62 (better) | 1.47 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.64 | 2.56 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.99% | 1.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 23.3% | 28.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.9% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.6% | 856% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.6% | 858% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 110% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 4.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$169K (better) | −$1.2M |
| Short interest, % of float | 13.1% | 7.5% |
Go deeper
- BCO stock overview
- BCO income statement
- BCO valuation and score
- HUBG stock overview
- HUBG income statement
- HUBG valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.