Bowman Consulting vs Willdan
BWMN and WLDN side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BWMN and WLDN compare
Willdan is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Bowman Consulting ($1.1B against $744M).
On earnings, Willdan is cheaper: it trades at 17.3× trailing earnings, against 107× for Bowman Consulting.
Willdan grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.1% versus 14.2% for Bowman Consulting).
Willdan keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.8% compared with 1.4% at Bowman Consulting.
Willdan scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 13 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 | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $744M | $1.1B |
| Share price | $42.90 | $73.59 |
| Change, 1 year | −1.7% | −20.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 149% | 97.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 1.10 |
| Employees | 2,300 | 1,814 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 107× | 17.3× (better) |
| P/S | 1.4× (better) | 1.5× |
| P/B | 2.9× (better) | 3.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.9× | 15.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 59.2× | 18.0× (better) |
| PEG | 4.22 | – |
| FCF yield | 1.7% | 5.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $29.90 | $90.91 |
| Margin of safety | −43.5% | 19.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.2% | 18.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 32.1% (better) | 11.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −32.6% | 85.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −32.2% | 78.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 33.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 53.4% (better) | 37.8% |
| Operating margin | 3.4% | 7.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.4% | 8.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.4% | 8.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 2.9% | 21.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.8% | 15.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.09 (better) | 0.19 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.29 (better) | 0.44 |
| Current ratio | 0.90 | 1.37 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.10 | 4.21 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 2.6% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.6% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 63.7% | 88.6% |
| Held by insiders | 17.0% | 4.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.6M (better) | −$12.5M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.9% | 12.1% |
Go deeper
- BWMN stock overview
- BWMN income statement
- BWMN valuation and score
- WLDN stock overview
- WLDN income statement
- WLDN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.