Carlyle vs Lazard
CG and LAZ side by side, both in services allied with the exchange of securities. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CG and LAZ compare
Carlyle is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Lazard ($14.3B against $4.2B).
On earnings, Lazard is cheaper: it trades at 18.8× trailing earnings, against 41.9× for Carlyle.
Lazard grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.6% versus −41.9% for Carlyle).
Carlyle keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.1% compared with 6.9% at Lazard.
Both pay dividends: Carlyle yields 3.5% and Lazard 5.2%.
Lazard scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 2 for Carlyle), 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 | CG | LAZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.3B | $4.2B |
| Share price | $40.18 | $38.35 |
| Change, 1 year | −30.2% | −19.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −32.8% | −20.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.65 | 1.41 |
| Employees | 2,500 | 3,309 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 2 | 8 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 41.9× | 18.8× (better) |
| P/S | 4.0× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | – | 4.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.2× | 9.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 6.4× |
| FCF yield | −28.8% | 15.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $25.14 | $37.77 |
| Margin of safety | −59.8% | −1.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −41.9% | 5.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.2% (better) | 3.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −71.0% | −26.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −71.9% | −29.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 17.6% (better) | −9.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 9.3% |
| Net margin | 10.1% (better) | 6.9% |
| FCF margin | −114% | 19.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 27.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | – | 3.4× |
| Altman Z-score | 0.58 | 2.23 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.5% | 5.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 139% | 84.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 1.2% |
| Buyback yield | 6.4% (better) | 2.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 9.9% (better) | 7.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 61.8% | 91.9% |
| Held by insiders | 29.4% | 4.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$75.8M | −$8.7M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 8.3% |
Go deeper
- CG stock overview
- CG income statement
- CG valuation and score
- LAZ stock overview
- LAZ income statement
- LAZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.