CoStar vs RB Global
CSGP and RBA 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 RBA compare
RB Global is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as CoStar ($16.6B against $12.2B).
On earnings, RB Global is cheaper: it trades at 38.5× trailing earnings, against 159× for CoStar.
CoStar grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.0% versus 9.7% for RB Global).
RB Global keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.0% compared with 2.1% at CoStar.
RB Global pays a dividend yielding 0.71%; CoStar does not pay one.
RB Global scores higher on the StockData Score (11 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 | RBA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.2B | $16.6B |
| Share price | $30.17 | $89.69 |
| Change, 1 year | −57.2% | −10.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −63.8% | 20.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.04 | 0.53 |
| Employees | 8,000 | 8,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 159× | 38.5× (better) |
| P/S | 3.4× | 3.4× (better) |
| P/B | 1.5× (better) | 3.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 30.4× | 14.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 43.7× | 27.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 2.3% | 3.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $16.48 | $87.30 |
| Margin of safety | −83.1% | −2.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 22.0% (better) | 9.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% | 27.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −29.3% | 15.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −24.0% | 15.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −49.2% | 5.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 78.7% | – |
| Operating margin | 2.2% | 16.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.1% | 10.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.9% | 12.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 0.89% | 8.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 0.83% | 8.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.13 (better) | 0.52 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.69 | 1.85 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 3.2× | 4.3× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.21 (better) | 1.31 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.83 (better) | 2.34 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.71% |
| Buyback yield | 8.4% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 8.4% (better) | 0.71% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 98.3% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 0.21% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $8.0M (better) | −$2.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 8.9% |
Go deeper
- CSGP stock overview
- CSGP income statement
- CSGP valuation and score
- RBA stock overview
- RBA income statement
- RBA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.