Leonardo DRS vs Sensata Technologies
DRS and ST side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DRS and ST compare
Leonardo DRS is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Sensata Technologies ($10.1B against $5.9B).
On earnings, Leonardo DRS is cheaper: it trades at 31.7× trailing earnings, against 67.1× for Sensata Technologies.
Leonardo DRS grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.5% versus 0.80% for Sensata Technologies).
Leonardo DRS keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.5% compared with 2.4% at Sensata Technologies.
Both pay dividends: Leonardo DRS yields 0.96% and Sensata Technologies 1.2%.
Leonardo DRS scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 11 for Sensata Technologies), 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 | DRS | ST |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.1B | $5.9B |
| Share price | $37.68 | $40.27 |
| Change, 1 year | −2.0% | 23.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 257% | −32.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 7,300 | 21K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 31.7× (better) | 67.1× |
| P/S | 2.7× | 1.6× (better) |
| P/B | 3.6× | 2.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.1× | 15.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 27.7× | 10.1× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.6% | 9.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $37.78 | $37.27 |
| Margin of safety | 0.26% (better) | −8.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.5% (better) | 0.80% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.6% (better) | 4.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 28.8% (better) | −19.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 28.0% (better) | −20.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.8% (better) | −27.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 24.9% | 29.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 10.5% (better) | 7.5% |
| Net margin | 8.5% (better) | 2.4% |
| FCF margin | 9.6% | 15.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 11.9% (better) | 3.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 12.3% (better) | 2.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.05 (better) | 0.82 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.24 | 3.86 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.92 | 2.29 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.10 (better) | 2.40 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.96% | 1.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 77.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.26% | 0.43% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 1.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 26.6% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 0.32% | 1.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.1M | −$8.0M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.2% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- DRS stock overview
- DRS income statement
- DRS valuation and score
- ST stock overview
- ST income statement
- ST valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.