Climb Global Solutions vs Global Industrial
CLMB and GIC side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLMB and GIC compare
Global Industrial is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as Climb Global Solutions ($1.8B against $777M).
On earnings, Global Industrial is cheaper: it trades at 20.8× trailing earnings, against 32.3× for Climb Global Solutions.
Climb Global Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (24.2% versus 8.4% for Global Industrial).
Global Industrial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.1% compared with 3.1% at Climb Global Solutions.
Global Industrial pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; Climb Global Solutions does not pay one.
Global Industrial scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 14 for Climb Global Solutions), 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 | CLMB | GIC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $777M | $1.8B |
| Share price | $41.67 | $46.63 |
| Change, 1 year | 50.7% | 72.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 433% | 6.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.85 | 0.94 |
| Employees | 412 | 1,980 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.3× | 20.8× (better) |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 1.2× |
| P/B | 5.8× | 5.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.3× | 13.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 20.4× |
| PEG | 1.78 | – |
| FCF yield | – | 4.9% |
| Fair value | $24.47 | $39.73 |
| Margin of safety | −70.3% | −17.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 24.2% (better) | 8.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 21.0% (better) | 6.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.4% | 31.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 11.2% | 31.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 35.7% (better) | 1.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 15.5% | 36.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.0% | 8.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 3.1% | 6.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 6.1% |
| Return on equity | 19.5% | 26.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 35.8% (better) | 33.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −1.72 | – |
| Current ratio | 1.14 | 2.24 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.30 | 7.44 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 1.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 3.3% | 48.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% (better) | −21.8% |
| Buyback yield | 0.28% (better) | −0.11% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.28% | 1.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 80.1% | 34.0% |
| Held by insiders | 4.7% | 63.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$609K (better) | −$2.2M |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.0% | 4.9% |
Go deeper
- CLMB stock overview
- CLMB income statement
- CLMB valuation and score
- GIC stock overview
- GIC income statement
- GIC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.