Bio-Rad Laboratories vs Waters
BIO and WAT side by side, both in laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BIO and WAT compare
Waters is the larger company, worth 4.6 times as much as Bio-Rad Laboratories ($45.5B against $10.0B).
On earnings, Bio-Rad Laboratories is cheaper: it trades at 45.1× trailing earnings, against 115× for Waters.
Waters grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (52.5% versus 1.4% for Bio-Rad Laboratories).
Bio-Rad Laboratories keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.6% compared with 3.6% at Waters.
Waters scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 8 for Bio-Rad Laboratories), 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 | BIO | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.0B | $45.5B |
| Share price | $372.18 | $462.72 |
| Change, 1 year | 16.5% | 34.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −48.7% | 34.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.04 | 0.93 |
| Employees | 7,450 | 7,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 9 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 45.1× (better) | 115× |
| P/S | 3.8× (better) | 9.8× |
| P/B | 1.4× (better) | 3.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 172× | 151× (better) |
| P/FCF | 28.2× | – |
| FCF yield | 3.5% | – |
| Fair value | $239.52 | $87.10 |
| Margin of safety | −55.4% (better) | −431% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.4% | 52.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.29% | 6.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −30.3% (better) | −74.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −29.7% (better) | −63.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −26.1% | 5.2% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 51.9% | – |
| Operating margin | 2.1% | 7.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.6% (better) | 3.6% |
| FCF margin | 13.6% | – |
| Return on equity | 3.1% (better) | 1.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 0.51% | 2.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.11 (better) | 0.32 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −15.36 | 13.19 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 1.1× | 2.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 3.14 (better) | 1.86 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.55 | 3.76 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.03% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.03% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.2% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 54.5% | 0.10% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$350K (better) | −$992K |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 3.5% |
Go deeper
- BIO stock overview
- BIO income statement
- BIO valuation and score
- WAT stock overview
- WAT income statement
- WAT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.