Bioventus vs UFP Technologies
BVS and UFPT side by side, both in surgical, medical, and dental instruments and supplies. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BVS and UFPT compare
UFP Technologies is the larger company, worth 2.6 times as much as Bioventus ($2.4B against $896M).
On earnings, Bioventus is cheaper: it trades at 13.3× trailing earnings, against 31.1× for UFP Technologies.
UFP Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.6% versus 3.9% for Bioventus).
UFP Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.8% compared with 9.8% at Bioventus.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | BVS | UFPT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $896M | $2.4B |
| Share price | $10.66 | $305.06 |
| Change, 1 year | 39.3% | 28.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −24.0% | 339% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.90 | 1.05 |
| Employees | 930 | 4,846 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 14 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.3× (better) | 31.1× |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 3.6× |
| P/B | 3.7× (better) | 4.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.0× (better) | 24.2× |
| P/FCF | 10.5× | – |
| PEG | – | 1.82 |
| FCF yield | 9.5% | – |
| Fair value | $15.96 | $255.33 |
| Margin of safety | 33.2% (better) | −19.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.9% | 8.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.1% | 27.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 655% (better) | 14.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 627% (better) | 13.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 37.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 68.7% (better) | 28.9% |
| Operating margin | 9.7% | 15.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 9.8% | 11.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.5% | – |
| Return on equity | 28.2% (better) | 17.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 12.8% | 15.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.96 | 0.20 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.44 | 0.75 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 14.6× |
| Current ratio | 1.68 | 2.98 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.14 | 9.80 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | −0.32% | – |
| Shareholder yield | −0.32% | 0.00% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 71.2% | 123% |
| Held by insiders | 29.0% | 4.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$181K (better) | −$13.6M |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.1% | 12.4% |
Go deeper
- BVS stock overview
- BVS income statement
- BVS valuation and score
- UFPT stock overview
- UFPT income statement
- UFPT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.