Chunghwa Telecom vs T-Mobile US
CHT and TMUS side by side, both in telephone communications. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CHT and TMUS compare
T-Mobile US grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.7% versus 2.7% for Chunghwa Telecom).
Chunghwa Telecom keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.4% compared with 11.5% at T-Mobile US.
T-Mobile US pays a dividend yielding 2.6%; Chunghwa Telecom does not pay one.
T-Mobile US scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 10 for Chunghwa Telecom), 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 | CHT | TMUS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | – | $168B |
| Share price | $48.99 | $156.44 |
| Change, 1 year | 14.4% | −27.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 24.3% | 27.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.24 | 0.51 |
| Employees | 33K | 75K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 16.4× |
| P/S | – | 1.8× |
| P/B | – | 3.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 5.2× |
| P/FCF | – | 9.1× |
| PEG | – | 0.24 |
| FCF yield | – | 11.0% |
| Fair value | – | $195.44 |
| Margin of safety | – | 20.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.7% | 9.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.6% | 5.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 4.1% (better) | −13.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 4.2% (better) | −9.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 3.0% | 29.7% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.8% | – |
| Operating margin | 20.6% (better) | 19.8% |
| Net margin | 16.4% (better) | 11.5% |
| FCF margin | 21.1% (better) | 20.0% |
| Return on equity | 10.1% | 18.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 11.0% | 23.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.01 (better) | 0.11 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.37 | 0.10 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 131× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.45 (better) | 0.92 |
| Altman Z-score | – | 1.51 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.6% |
| Payout ratio | 100% | 41.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Buyback yield | – | 7.2% |
| Shareholder yield | – | 9.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 0.26% | 43.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.01% | – |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$161M |
Go deeper
- CHT stock overview
- CHT income statement
- CHT valuation and score
- TMUS stock overview
- TMUS income statement
- TMUS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.