Darling Ingredients vs Ingredion
DAR and INGR side by side, both in food and kindred products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DAR and INGR compare
Darling Ingredients is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Ingredion ($8.8B against $6.1B).
On earnings, Ingredion is cheaper: it trades at 10.6× trailing earnings, against 15.0× for Darling Ingredients.
Darling Ingredients grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.9% versus −1.4% for Ingredion).
Darling Ingredients keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.1% compared with 8.2% at Ingredion.
Ingredion pays a dividend yielding 3.4%; Darling Ingredients does not pay one.
Ingredion scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 15 for Darling Ingredients), 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 | DAR | INGR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.8B | $6.1B |
| Share price | $55.73 | $96.97 |
| Change, 1 year | 66.5% | −16.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −34.3% | −1.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.62 | 0.39 |
| Employees | 15K | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 6 | 6 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 15.0× | 10.6× (better) |
| P/S | 1.3× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | 1.7× | 1.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.6× | 6.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 17.2× |
| PEG | – | 0.70 |
| FCF yield | – | 5.8% |
| Fair value | $71.44 | $166.58 |
| Margin of safety | 22.0% | 41.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.9% (better) | −1.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.4% (better) | 3.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 468% (better) | −12.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 462% (better) | −10.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −26.2% | 16.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 26.3% (better) | 23.7% |
| Operating margin | 14.5% (better) | 11.9% |
| Net margin | 9.1% (better) | 8.2% |
| FCF margin | – | 4.9% |
| Return on equity | 12.1% | 13.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 8.9% | 12.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.75 | 0.39 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.57 | 0.77 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 4.3× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.56 | 2.80 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.47 | 3.63 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 3.4% |
| Payout ratio | – | 35.5% |
| Buyback yield | 0.80% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.80% | 3.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 106% | 98.9% |
| Held by insiders | 1.5% | 0.81% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.2M (better) | −$6.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 7.7% |
Go deeper
- DAR stock overview
- DAR income statement
- DAR valuation and score
- INGR stock overview
- INGR income statement
- INGR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.