CoStar vs MSCI
CSGP and MSCI side by side, both in miscellaneous business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CSGP and MSCI compare
MSCI is the larger company, worth 3.7 times as much as CoStar ($45.3B against $12.2B).
On earnings, MSCI is cheaper: it trades at 34.1× trailing earnings, against 159× for CoStar.
CoStar grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.0% versus 11.6% for MSCI).
MSCI keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 40.7% compared with 2.1% at CoStar.
MSCI pays a dividend yielding 1.3%; CoStar does not pay one.
MSCI scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 9 for CoStar), 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 | CSGP | MSCI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.2B | $45.3B |
| Share price | $30.17 | $623.38 |
| Change, 1 year | −57.2% | 9.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −63.8% | −4.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.04 | 1.18 |
| Employees | 8,000 | 6,268 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 159× | 34.1× (better) |
| P/S | 3.4× (better) | 13.6× |
| P/B | 1.5× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 30.4× | 27.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 43.7× | 28.4× (better) |
| PEG | – | 2.52 |
| FCF yield | 2.3% | 3.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $16.48 | $576.32 |
| Margin of safety | −83.1% | −8.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 22.0% (better) | 11.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% (better) | 13.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −29.3% | 15.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −24.0% | 21.1% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −49.2% | 17.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 78.7% | 83.0% (better) |
| Operating margin | 2.2% | 55.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.1% | 40.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.9% | 47.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 0.89% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 0.83% | 47.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.13 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.69 | 3.20 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 3.2× | 7.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.21 (better) | 0.89 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.83 | 6.40 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.3% |
| Payout ratio | – | 42.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 11 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 19.8% |
| Buyback yield | 8.4% (better) | 6.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 8.4% (better) | 7.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 92.8% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 3.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $8.0M | $8.5M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 2.8% |
Go deeper
- CSGP stock overview
- CSGP income statement
- CSGP valuation and score
- MSCI stock overview
- MSCI income statement
- MSCI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.