Bruker vs Illumina
BRKR and ILMN 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 BRKR and ILMN compare
Illumina is the larger company, worth 4.0 times as much as Bruker ($35.6B against $8.9B).
Illumina grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.8% versus 1.6% for Bruker).
Illumina keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.7% compared with −2.0% at Bruker.
Bruker pays a dividend yielding 0.35%; Illumina does not pay one.
Illumina scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 6 for Bruker), 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 | BRKR | ILMN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.9B | $35.6B |
| Share price | $57.07 | $235.99 |
| Change, 1 year | 51.2% | 148% |
| Change, 5 years | −30.1% | −41.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.09 | 1.35 |
| Employees | 11K | 52 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 40.5× |
| P/S | 2.5× (better) | 7.9× |
| P/B | – | 11.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 52.6× | 37.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 94.3× | 33.7× (better) |
| FCF yield | 1.1% | 3.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $15.68 | $191.74 |
| Margin of safety | −264% | −23.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.6% | 5.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.6% (better) | 6.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −189% | 27.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −235% | 30.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 4.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 46.4% | 67.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | −0.87% | 21.2% (better) |
| Net margin | −2.0% | 19.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.7% | 23.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 32.4% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 28.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.57 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 8.22 | 0.47 (better) |
| Interest coverage | −0.5× | 9.8× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.85 | 2.63 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.22 | 7.33 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.35% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.35% | 1.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.4% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 26.4% | 0.86% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.6M (better) | −$593M |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 6.3% |
Go deeper
- BRKR stock overview
- BRKR income statement
- BRKR valuation and score
- ILMN stock overview
- ILMN income statement
- ILMN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.