Custom Truck One Source vs United Rentals
CTOS and URI side by side, both in miscellaneous equipment rental and leasing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CTOS and URI compare
United Rentals is the larger company, worth 30 times as much as Custom Truck One Source ($72.8B against $2.4B).
On earnings, United Rentals is cheaper: it trades at 28.1× trailing earnings, against 118× for Custom Truck One Source.
Custom Truck One Source grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.0% versus 6.9% for United Rentals).
United Rentals keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.7% compared with 1.1% at Custom Truck One Source.
United Rentals pays a dividend yielding 0.66%; Custom Truck One Source does not pay one.
United Rentals scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 5 for Custom Truck One Source), 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 | CTOS | URI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.4B | $72.8B |
| Share price | $10.60 | $1170.05 |
| Change, 1 year | 75.5% | 34.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 0.57% | 199% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.36 | 1.43 |
| Employees | 2,500 | 1,800 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 118× | 28.1× (better) |
| P/S | 1.2× (better) | 4.3× |
| P/B | 3.0× (better) | 7.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.3× (better) | 18.8× |
| PEG | – | 3.05 |
| Fair value | $8.34 | $684.53 |
| Margin of safety | −27.1% (better) | −70.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.0% (better) | 6.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 45.1% (better) | 13.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 4.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 7.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 25.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 22.2% | 38.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.0% | 24.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.1% | 15.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | 2.7% | 28.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.7% | 13.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.03 | 1.54 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.79 | 3.06 (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.34 (better) | 0.76 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.11 | 3.67 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.66% |
| Payout ratio | – | 18.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 2.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 3.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.2% | 92.2% |
| Held by insiders | 73.7% | 0.29% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$30.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.8% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- CTOS stock overview
- CTOS income statement
- CTOS valuation and score
- URI stock overview
- URI income statement
- URI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.