Carrier Global vs Trane Technologies
CARR and TT side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CARR and TT compare
Trane Technologies is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Carrier Global ($90.2B against $44.2B).
Trane Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.3% versus 3.3% for Carrier Global).
Trane Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.6% compared with −7.9% at Carrier Global.
Both pay dividends: Carrier Global yields 1.3% and Trane Technologies 0.77%.
Trane Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (23 against 5 for Carrier Global), 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 | CARR | TT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $44.2B | $90.2B |
| Share price | $53.63 | $410.00 |
| Change, 1 year | −11.7% | −4.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 1.6% | 122% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.23 | 1.12 |
| Employees | 47K | 45K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 23 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 29.0× |
| P/S | 1.9× (better) | 3.9× |
| P/B | – | 9.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 282× | 20.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 18.6× (better) | 23.6× |
| PEG | – | 1.44 |
| FCF yield | 5.4% (better) | 4.2% |
| Fair value | $36.48 | $491.31 |
| Margin of safety | −47.0% | 16.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.3% | 10.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | 11.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −145% | 7.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −150% | 8.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −5.2% | 29.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | −4.8% | 17.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −7.9% | 13.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 10.4% | 16.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 36.1% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 25.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.46 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 52.16 | 0.92 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 19.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.00 | 1.12 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.13 | 5.91 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.77% |
| Payout ratio | – | 28.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 19.2% (better) | 12.1% |
| Buyback yield | 3.7% (better) | 1.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% (better) | 2.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.0% | 87.5% |
| Held by insiders | 4.8% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$749M | −$52.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.8% | 1.7% |
Go deeper
- CARR stock overview
- CARR income statement
- CARR valuation and score
- TT stock overview
- TT income statement
- TT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.