CTS vs Vishay Precision
CTS and VPG 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 CTS and VPG compare
CTS is the larger company, worth 2.5 times as much as Vishay Precision ($1.8B against $717M).
Vishay Precision grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.6% versus 7.6% for CTS).
CTS keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.9% compared with −1.0% at Vishay Precision.
CTS pays a dividend yielding 0.26%; Vishay Precision does not pay one.
CTS scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 6 for Vishay Precision), 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 | CTS | VPG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.8B | $717M |
| Share price | $62.07 | $53.82 |
| Change, 1 year | 50.3% | 57.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 65.5% | 45.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 3,820 | 2,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.5× | – |
| P/S | 3.1× | 2.1× (better) |
| P/B | 3.0× | 2.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.3× (better) | 32.1× |
| P/FCF | 16.3× (better) | 489× |
| PEG | 4.24 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.1% (better) | 0.20% |
| Fair value | $68.27 | $28.45 |
| Margin of safety | 9.1% (better) | −89.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.6% | 11.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.0% (better) | 2.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 29.2% (better) | −142% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 33.2% (better) | −142% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.6% (better) | −12.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.6% (better) | 38.7% |
| Operating margin | 17.0% (better) | 1.1% |
| Net margin | 12.9% (better) | −1.0% |
| FCF margin | 19.0% (better) | 0.44% |
| Return on equity | 13.0% (better) | −1.00% |
| Return on invested capital | 14.7% (better) | 0.70% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.05 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −3.21 |
| Interest coverage | 32.9× (better) | 2.8× |
| Current ratio | 2.59 | 3.59 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 7.19 (better) | 5.13 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.26% | – |
| Payout ratio | 6.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.8% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.1% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.9% | 84.3% |
| Held by insiders | 6.7% | 3.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$9.8M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.2% | 10.3% |
Go deeper
- CTS stock overview
- CTS income statement
- CTS valuation and score
- VPG stock overview
- VPG income statement
- VPG valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.