Franklin Templeton vs Federated Hermes
BEN and FHI side by side, both in services allied with the exchange of securities. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BEN and FHI compare
Franklin Templeton is the larger company, worth 3.7 times as much as Federated Hermes ($16.1B against $4.4B).
On earnings, Federated Hermes is cheaper: it trades at 10.6× trailing earnings, against 21.5× for Franklin Templeton.
Federated Hermes grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.2% versus 7.9% for Franklin Templeton).
Federated Hermes keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.3% compared with 8.7% at Franklin Templeton.
Both pay dividends: Franklin Templeton yields 4.2% and Federated Hermes 2.5%.
Federated Hermes scores higher on the StockData Score (23 against 9 for Franklin Templeton), 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 | BEN | FHI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $16.1B | $4.4B |
| Share price | $31.64 | $58.48 |
| Change, 1 year | 37.9% | 22.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −11.8% | 69.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.17 | 0.68 |
| Employees | 9,800 | 2,091 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 23 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.5× | 10.6× (better) |
| P/S | 1.7× (better) | 2.2× |
| P/B | 1.4× (better) | 3.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.1× | 7.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 11.3× |
| PEG | – | 0.43 |
| FCF yield | – | 8.8% |
| Fair value | $27.33 | $76.31 |
| Margin of safety | −15.8% | 23.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.9% | 13.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.5% (better) | 4.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 152% (better) | 10.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 183% (better) | 15.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −10.6% | 9.7% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 9.7% | 27.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.7% | 21.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 19.6% |
| Return on equity | 6.8% | 33.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 8.3% | 51.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 10.2× | – |
| Current ratio | – | 2.48 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.23 | 5.35 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.2% (better) | 2.5% |
| Payout ratio | 85.4% | 26.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.5% (better) | −8.6% |
| Buyback yield | 3.2% | 6.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.4% | 8.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 53.6% | 89.1% |
| Held by insiders | 21.0% | 4.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $2.1M (better) | −$13.0M |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.6% | 5.7% |
Go deeper
- BEN stock overview
- BEN income statement
- BEN valuation and score
- FHI stock overview
- FHI income statement
- FHI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.