Clearfield vs NAPCO Security Technologies
CLFD and NSSC side by side, both in communications equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLFD and NSSC compare
NAPCO Security Technologies is the larger company, worth 2.6 times as much as Clearfield ($1.1B against $416M).
Clearfield grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (34.0% versus 8.7% for NAPCO Security Technologies).
NAPCO Security Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.6% compared with −4.7% at Clearfield.
NAPCO Security Technologies pays a dividend yielding 2.0%; Clearfield does not pay one.
NAPCO Security Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 9 for Clearfield), 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 | CLFD | NSSC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $416M | $1.1B |
| Share price | $30.59 | $30.62 |
| Change, 1 year | −7.0% | −27.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −54.3% | 23.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.53 | 1.33 |
| Employees | 243 | 1,049 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 24.9× |
| P/S | 2.7× (better) | 5.4× |
| P/B | 1.7× (better) | 5.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 54.8× | 20.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 56.6× | 21.9× (better) |
| PEG | – | 1.38 |
| FCF yield | 1.8% | 4.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $19.22 | $32.66 |
| Margin of safety | −59.1% | 6.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 34.0% (better) | 8.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.0% | 12.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −3710% | −1.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −5300% | 0.00% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 23.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.0% | 59.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | −0.24% | 22.7% (better) |
| Net margin | −4.7% | 21.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.8% | 24.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | −2.8% | 23.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −0.18% | 59.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Current ratio | 12.53 (better) | 7.23 |
| Altman Z-score | 13.62 | 23.57 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.0% |
| Payout ratio | – | 47.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 3 |
| Buyback yield | 3.2% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.2% (better) | 2.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 64.4% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 18.0% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$854K (better) | −$32.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.4% | 6.5% |
Go deeper
- CLFD stock overview
- CLFD income statement
- CLFD valuation and score
- NSSC stock overview
- NSSC income statement
- NSSC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.