Charles River Laboratories International vs Medpace
CRL and MEDP side by side, both in engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CRL and MEDP compare
Charles River Laboratories International and Medpace are about the same size, with market caps of $17.2B and $18.2B.
Medpace grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (24.7% versus −0.74% for Charles River Laboratories International).
Medpace keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.7% compared with −6.0% at Charles River Laboratories International.
Medpace scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 7 for Charles River Laboratories International), 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 | CRL | MEDP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.2B | $18.2B |
| Share price | $359.41 | $652.01 |
| Change, 1 year | 99.5% | 11.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −4.2% | 189% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.19 | 1.39 |
| Employees | 20K | 6,200 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 38.2× |
| P/S | 4.3× (better) | 6.5× |
| P/B | 6.0× (better) | 41.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 50.5× | 30.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 46.3× | 25.8× (better) |
| PEG | – | 1.36 |
| FCF yield | 2.2% | 3.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $80.65 | $430.99 |
| Margin of safety | −346% | −51.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.74% | 24.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.5% | 22.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 17.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 26.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 31.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 2.3% | 21.0% (better) |
| Net margin | −6.0% | 17.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.3% | 25.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | −7.7% | 162% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 1.3% | 1674% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.92 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 6.27 | – |
| Interest coverage | 0.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.35 (better) | 0.73 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.11 | 8.44 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 119% | 88.5% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 20.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$42.6M (better) | −$409M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.1% | 7.2% |
Go deeper
- CRL stock overview
- CRL income statement
- CRL valuation and score
- MEDP stock overview
- MEDP income statement
- MEDP valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.