Bloom Energy vs Woodward
BE and WWD side by side, both in electronic and other electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BE and WWD compare
Bloom Energy is the larger company, worth 3.3 times as much as Woodward ($59.8B against $18.0B).
Bloom Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (91.0% versus 22.3% for Woodward).
Woodward pays a dividend yielding 0.41%; Bloom Energy does not pay one.
Woodward scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 10 for Bloom Energy), 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 | BE | WWD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $59.8B | $18.0B |
| Share price | $203.17 | $304.65 |
| Change, 1 year | 51.9% | 13.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 535% | 153% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.21 | 1.07 |
| Employees | 2,214 | 7,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 33.9× |
| P/S | 19.2× | 4.3× (better) |
| P/B | 37.1× | 7.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 171× | 22.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 95.8× | 47.8× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.88 |
| FCF yield | 1.0% | 2.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $30.25 | $292.93 |
| Margin of safety | −572% | −4.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 91.0% (better) | 22.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.6% (better) | 7.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 42.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 42.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 14.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 31.2% (better) | 29.5% |
| Operating margin | 11.2% | – |
| Net margin | – | 13.2% |
| FCF margin | 20.1% (better) | 9.0% |
| Return on equity | – | 22.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 27.0% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.54 | 0.54 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.52 | 1.01 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 8.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 4.09 (better) | 1.65 |
| Altman Z-score | 9.58 (better) | 6.05 |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.41% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 4 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 12.5% |
| Buyback yield | −0.12% | 3.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | −0.12% | 3.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 78.6% | 91.3% |
| Held by insiders | 7.1% | 0.44% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$163M | −$32.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.7% | 1.8% |
Go deeper
- BE stock overview
- BE income statement
- BE valuation and score
- WWD stock overview
- WWD income statement
- WWD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.