Charles River Laboratories International vs UL Solutions
CRL and ULS 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 ULS compare
Charles River Laboratories International and UL Solutions are about the same size, with market caps of $17.2B and $15.1B.
UL Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.6% versus −0.74% for Charles River Laboratories International).
UL Solutions keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.1% compared with −6.0% at Charles River Laboratories International.
UL Solutions pays a dividend yielding 0.76%; Charles River Laboratories International does not pay one.
UL Solutions scores higher on the StockData Score (16 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 | ULS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.2B | $15.1B |
| Share price | $359.41 | $74.76 |
| Change, 1 year | 99.5% | −7.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −4.2% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.19 | 0.47 |
| Employees | 20K | 15K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 30.1× |
| P/S | 4.3× (better) | 4.8× |
| P/B | 6.0× (better) | 9.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 50.5× | 19.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 46.3× | 34.6× (better) |
| PEG | – | 10.52 |
| FCF yield | 2.2% | 2.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $80.65 | $62.88 |
| Margin of safety | −346% | −18.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.74% | 6.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.5% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 54.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 53.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 50.3% |
| Operating margin | 2.3% | 17.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −6.0% | 16.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.3% | 13.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | −7.7% | 37.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 1.3% | 28.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.92 | 0.19 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 6.27 (better) | −0.18 |
| Interest coverage | 0.8× | 17.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.35 | 1.42 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.11 | 8.12 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.76% |
| Payout ratio | – | 21.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 1 |
| Buyback yield | 1.9% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.9% (better) | 0.76% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 119% | 43.3% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | – |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$42.6M (better) | −$1.1B |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.1% | – |
Go deeper
- CRL stock overview
- CRL income statement
- CRL valuation and score
- ULS stock overview
- ULS income statement
- ULS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.