Diebold Nixdorf vs Pitney Bowes
DBD and PBI side by side, both in computer and office equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DBD and PBI compare
Diebold Nixdorf and Pitney Bowes are about the same size, with market caps of $1.9B and $2.2B.
On earnings, Pitney Bowes is cheaper: it trades at 12.4× trailing earnings, against 26.7× for Diebold Nixdorf.
Diebold Nixdorf grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.3% versus −3.5% for Pitney Bowes).
Pitney Bowes keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.1% compared with 2.0% at Diebold Nixdorf.
Pitney Bowes pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; Diebold Nixdorf does not pay one.
Pitney Bowes scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 8 for Diebold Nixdorf), 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 | DBD | PBI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.9B | $2.2B |
| Share price | $57.04 | $15.94 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.2% | 72.0% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 113% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.99 | 1.34 |
| Employees | 20K | 6,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.7× | 12.4× (better) |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 1.2× |
| P/B | 2.0× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.0× | – |
| P/FCF | – | 4.3× |
| PEG | – | 0.21 |
| FCF yield | – | 23.4% |
| Fair value | $91.07 | $23.19 |
| Margin of safety | 37.4% (better) | 31.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.3% (better) | −3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.50% (better) | −11.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 51.6% | 135% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 56.2% | 187% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.0% | – |
| Operating margin | 5.4% | – |
| Net margin | 2.0% | 10.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 27.1% |
| Return on equity | 7.5% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 8.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.01 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.28 | – |
| Interest coverage | 2.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.27 (better) | 0.70 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.84 | 2.06 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 29.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 8.4% |
| Buyback yield | 10.8% | 15.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 10.8% | 17.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 116% | 89.9% |
| Held by insiders | 58.9% | 5.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$126M | −$92.3M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 23.0% | 14.9% |
Go deeper
- DBD stock overview
- DBD income statement
- DBD valuation and score
- PBI stock overview
- PBI income statement
- PBI valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.