CTO Realty Growth vs LandBridge
CTO and LB side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CTO and LB compare
LandBridge is the larger company, worth 7.1 times as much as CTO Realty Growth ($5.6B against $792M).
On earnings, CTO Realty Growth is cheaper: it trades at 17.9× trailing earnings, against 62.3× for LandBridge.
LandBridge grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (37.3% versus 15.9% for CTO Realty Growth).
CTO Realty Growth keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 26.1% compared with 17.1% at LandBridge.
Both pay dividends: CTO Realty Growth yields 7.4% and LandBridge 0.63%.
CTO Realty Growth scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 10 for LandBridge), 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 | CTO | LB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $792M | $5.6B |
| Share price | $20.43 | $72.90 |
| Change, 1 year | 18.0% | −2.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 7.3% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.56 | −0.57 |
| Employees | 42 | 5 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.9× (better) | 62.3× |
| P/S | 4.7× (better) | 22.9× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 14.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.1× (better) | 39.6× |
| P/FCF | – | 33.7× |
| FCF yield | – | 3.0% |
| Fair value | $27.73 | $19.11 |
| Margin of safety | 26.3% (better) | −281% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 15.9% | 37.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 21.5% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 71.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −57.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 75.1% | – |
| Operating margin | 37.5% | 63.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 26.1% (better) | 17.1% |
| FCF margin | – | 67.8% |
| Return on equity | 7.2% | 12.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 10.3% | 15.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.94 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 4.28 |
| Interest coverage | 2.1× | – |
| Current ratio | – | 2.78 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.98 | 4.84 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 7.4% (better) | 0.63% |
| Payout ratio | 120% | 147% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.4% (better) | 0.63% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 64.5% | 36.9% |
| Held by insiders | 3.9% | – |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$191M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.2% | – |
Go deeper
- CTO stock overview
- CTO income statement
- CTO valuation and score
- LB stock overview
- LB income statement
- LB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.