Canadian Solar vs Hubbell
CSIQ and HUBB side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CSIQ and HUBB compare
Hubbell grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.6% versus −6.6% for Canadian Solar).
Hubbell keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.5% compared with −1.9% at Canadian Solar.
Hubbell pays a dividend yielding 1.3%; Canadian Solar does not pay one.
Hubbell scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 3 for Canadian Solar), 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 | CSIQ | HUBB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | – | $22.3B |
| Share price | $9.26 | $422.44 |
| Change, 1 year | −47.3% | −10.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −75.9% | 105% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.47 | 0.96 |
| Employees | 1,318 | 18K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 3 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 25.0× |
| P/S | – | 3.6× |
| P/B | – | 5.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 18.3× |
| P/FCF | – | 24.8× |
| PEG | – | 1.39 |
| FCF yield | – | 4.0% |
| Fair value | – | $443.55 |
| Margin of safety | – | 4.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −6.6% | 10.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.0% (better) | 9.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −389% | 8.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −563% | 9.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 20.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 18.3% | 35.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 0.77% | 20.2% (better) |
| Net margin | −1.9% | 14.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | −21.7% | 14.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | −3.7% | 24.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 1.0% | 14.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.85 (better) | 1.37 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.70 (better) | 3.33 |
| Interest coverage | 0.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.02 | 1.61 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | – | 2.68 |
| Piotroski F-score | 2 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 7.7% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.91% |
| Shareholder yield | – | 2.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 60.1% | 96.7% |
| Held by insiders | 37.3% | 0.41% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$63.0K (better) | −$20.2M |
| Short interest, % of float | 46.7% | 4.9% |
Go deeper
- CSIQ stock overview
- CSIQ income statement
- CSIQ valuation and score
- HUBB stock overview
- HUBB income statement
- HUBB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.