Commvault Systems vs N-able
CVLT and NABL side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CVLT and NABL compare
Commvault Systems is the larger company, worth 6.8 times as much as N-able ($6.2B against $920M).
Commvault Systems grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.3% versus 8.3% for N-able).
Commvault Systems keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.6% compared with −2.3% at N-able.
Commvault Systems scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 8 for N-able), 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 | CVLT | NABL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.2B | $920M |
| Share price | $152.07 | $4.87 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.1% | −39.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 139% | −59.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.05 | 0.75 |
| Employees | 3,300 | 1,852 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 78.8× | – |
| P/S | 5.0× | 1.7× (better) |
| P/B | 496× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 52.7× | 12.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 24.3× | 12.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.1% | 8.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $84.35 | $9.23 |
| Margin of safety | −80.3% | 47.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.3% (better) | 8.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.3% | 10.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 3.0% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 8.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 81.3% (better) | 75.9% |
| Operating margin | 7.4% | 10.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 6.6% (better) | −2.3% |
| FCF margin | 20.4% (better) | 14.1% |
| Return on equity | 74.2% (better) | −1.5% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 2.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.51 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.01 |
| Interest coverage | 15.9× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.94 (better) | 1.11 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.07 (better) | 1.52 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 6.7% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 6.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 110% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 1.5% | 62.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$13.9M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.7% | 5.3% |
Go deeper
- CVLT stock overview
- CVLT income statement
- CVLT valuation and score
- NABL stock overview
- NABL income statement
- NABL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.