Cohen & Steers vs Virtus Investment Partners
CNS and VRTS side by side, both in services allied with the exchange of securities. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CNS and VRTS compare
Cohen & Steers is the larger company, worth 4.5 times as much as Virtus Investment Partners ($3.7B against $825M).
On earnings, Virtus Investment Partners is cheaper: it trades at 7.7× trailing earnings, against 21.9× for Cohen & Steers.
Cohen & Steers grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.6% versus −8.2% for Virtus Investment Partners).
Both pay dividends: Cohen & Steers yields 2.8% and Virtus Investment Partners 5.8%.
Virtus Investment Partners scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 14 for Cohen & Steers), 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 | CNS | VRTS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.7B | $825M |
| Share price | $71.42 | $124.56 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.5% | −24.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −27.4% | −60.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 1.33 |
| Employees | 411 | 801 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.9× | 7.7× (better) |
| P/S | 6.1× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 6.0× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.0× | 2.8× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.87 |
| FCF yield | – | −10.2% |
| Fair value | $66.10 | $276.21 |
| Margin of safety | −8.1% | 54.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.6% (better) | −8.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.4% | 7.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 2.8% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 2.2% (better) | −17.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.6% | 14.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 32.4% (better) | 14.5% |
| Net margin | 28.2% | – |
| FCF margin | – | −10.5% |
| Return on equity | 29.2% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 30.9% (better) | 15.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Altman Z-score | 10.69 (better) | 0.53 |
| Piotroski F-score | 2 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.8% | 5.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 80.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | 8 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −0.63% | 25.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.52% | 4.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% | 10.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 56.6% | 90.7% |
| Held by insiders | 46.2% | 7.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.5M (better) | −$3.7M |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.3% | 7.7% |
Go deeper
- CNS stock overview
- CNS income statement
- CNS valuation and score
- VRTS stock overview
- VRTS income statement
- VRTS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.