Clarivate vs Verisk Analytics
CLVT and VRSK side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLVT and VRSK compare
Verisk Analytics is the larger company, worth 24 times as much as Clarivate ($25.5B against $1.1B).
Verisk Analytics grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.0% versus −3.5% for Clarivate).
Verisk Analytics keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 28.2% compared with −13.8% at Clarivate.
Verisk Analytics pays a dividend yielding 0.99%; Clarivate does not pay one.
Verisk Analytics scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 7 for Clarivate), 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 | CLVT | VRSK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.1B | $25.5B |
| Share price | $1.65 | $196.30 |
| Change, 1 year | −52.7% | −5.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −92.9% | −8.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.17 | 0.62 |
| Employees | 12K | 8,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 30.2× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 8.1× |
| P/B | 0.2× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.6× (better) | 18.0× |
| P/FCF | 3.2× (better) | 20.7× |
| PEG | – | 11.60 |
| FCF yield | 31.0% (better) | 4.8% |
| Fair value | $9.93 | $215.11 |
| Margin of safety | 83.4% (better) | 8.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.5% | 5.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% (better) | 6.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −3.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 0.31% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 8.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 66.8% | 70.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | −3.5% | 43.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −13.8% | 28.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 13.6% | 39.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | −7.0% | – |
| Return on invested capital | −0.76% | 37.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.93 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 6.00 | 2.40 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 7.0× |
| Current ratio | 0.85 | 1.01 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | −0.76 | 6.94 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.99% |
| Payout ratio | – | 28.9% |
| Buyback yield | 13.6% (better) | 7.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 13.6% (better) | 8.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.1% | 98.7% |
| Held by insiders | 9.0% | 0.29% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.2M (better) | −$5.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.3% | 3.2% |
Go deeper
- CLVT stock overview
- CLVT income statement
- CLVT valuation and score
- VRSK stock overview
- VRSK income statement
- VRSK valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.