Bright Horizons Family Solutions vs Kelly Services
BFAM and KELYA side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BFAM and KELYA compare
Bright Horizons Family Solutions is the larger company, worth 5.2 times as much as Kelly Services ($2.5B against $480M).
Bright Horizons Family Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.7% versus −7.7% for Kelly Services).
Kelly Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −3.1% compared with −4.4% at Bright Horizons Family Solutions.
Kelly Services pays a dividend yielding 2.2%; Bright Horizons Family Solutions does not pay one.
Kelly Services scores higher on the StockData Score (6 against 5 for Bright Horizons Family Solutions), 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 | BFAM | KELYA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.5B | $480M |
| Share price | $51.91 | $13.81 |
| Change, 1 year | −47.6% | 55.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −58.9% | −21.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.90 | 0.87 |
| Employees | 32K | 3,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | 3.9× | 0.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 34.2× | 8.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 9.8× | – |
| FCF yield | 10.2% (better) | −1.7% |
| Fair value | $30.34 | $20.03 |
| Margin of safety | −71.1% | 31.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.7% (better) | −7.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.1% (better) | −1.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −167% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −185% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 49.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 22.8% (better) | 19.7% |
| Operating margin | 0.10% | 0.27% (better) |
| Net margin | −4.4% | −3.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.3% (better) | −0.20% |
| Return on equity | −13.0% | −11.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 0.14% | 0.53% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.69 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 9.51 | – |
| Interest coverage | 0.1× | 1.3× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.45 | 1.55 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.49 | 2.78 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.2% |
| Buyback yield | 27.3% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 27.3% (better) | 2.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 115% | 75.5% |
| Held by insiders | 1.4% | 23.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$657K (better) | −$106M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.3% | – |
Go deeper
- BFAM stock overview
- BFAM income statement
- BFAM valuation and score
- KELYA stock overview
- KELYA income statement
- KELYA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.