Charter Communications vs T-Mobile US
CHTR and TMUS side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CHTR and TMUS compare
T-Mobile US is the larger company, worth 13 times as much as Charter Communications ($168B against $13.3B).
On earnings, Charter Communications is cheaper: it trades at 2.9× trailing earnings, against 16.4× for T-Mobile US.
T-Mobile US grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.7% versus −1.5% for Charter Communications).
T-Mobile US keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.5% compared with 9.1% at Charter Communications.
T-Mobile US pays a dividend yielding 2.6%; Charter Communications does not pay one.
T-Mobile US scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 11 for Charter Communications), 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 | CHTR | TMUS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $13.3B | $168B |
| Share price | $111.49 | $156.44 |
| Change, 1 year | −53.8% | −27.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −83.8% | 27.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.89 | 0.51 |
| Employees | 92K | 75K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 2.9× (better) | 16.4× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 1.8× |
| P/B | 0.8× (better) | 3.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.2× (better) | 5.2× |
| P/FCF | 3.1× (better) | 9.1× |
| PEG | 0.52 | 0.24 (better) |
| FCF yield | 32.8% (better) | 11.0% |
| Fair value | $609.40 | $195.44 |
| Margin of safety | 81.7% (better) | 20.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.5% | 9.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.6% | 5.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −6.5% (better) | −13.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 5.5% (better) | −9.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 18.6% | 29.7% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 23.3% (better) | 19.8% |
| Net margin | 9.1% | 11.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.0% | 20.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 29.7% (better) | 18.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 8.8% | 23.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 5.54 | 0.11 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.36 | 0.10 (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.36 | 0.92 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.58 | 1.51 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.6% |
| Payout ratio | – | 41.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Buyback yield | 35.8% (better) | 7.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 35.8% (better) | 9.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 86.9% | 43.6% |
| Held by insiders | 83.6% | – |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$9.2M (better) | −$161M |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 | – |
Go deeper
- CHTR stock overview
- CHTR income statement
- CHTR 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.