Bowman Consulting vs ICF International
BWMN and ICFI side by side, both in management and public relations services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BWMN and ICFI compare
ICF International is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Bowman Consulting ($1.5B against $745M).
Bowman Consulting grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.0% versus −5.2% for ICF International).
ICF International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.3% compared with −0.22% at Bowman Consulting.
ICF International pays a dividend yielding 0.69%; Bowman Consulting does not pay one.
ICF International scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 10 for Bowman Consulting), 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 | BWMN | ICFI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $745M | $1.5B |
| Share price | $43.00 | $81.26 |
| Change, 1 year | 1.1% | 3.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 156% | −22.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 0.68 |
| Employees | 2,300 | 8,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 15.3× |
| P/S | 1.4× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | 2.8× | 1.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.3× | 9.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 178× | 7.8× (better) |
| PEG | – | 1.13 |
| FCF yield | 0.56% | 12.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $35.21 | $129.52 |
| Margin of safety | −22.1% | 37.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 16.0% (better) | −5.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 32.1% (better) | 4.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −107% | −2.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −110% | 0.19% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 33.8% (better) | 11.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 53.0% (better) | 37.3% |
| Operating margin | 2.9% | 8.1% (better) |
| Net margin | −0.22% | 5.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 0.76% | 10.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | −0.47% | 9.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 4.7% | 8.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.06 (better) | 0.34 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.28 (better) | 1.86 |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.91 | 1.40 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.05 | 2.74 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.69% |
| Payout ratio | – | 10.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 2.6% | 3.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.6% | 3.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 63.7% | 102% |
| Held by insiders | 12.9% | 1.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.6M | −$1.4M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 3.6% |
Go deeper
- BWMN stock overview
- BWMN income statement
- BWMN valuation and score
- ICFI stock overview
- ICFI income statement
- ICFI valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.