Dycom Industries vs MasTec
DY and MTZ side by side, both in heavy construction other than building construction contractors. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DY and MTZ compare
MasTec is the larger company, worth 2.2 times as much as Dycom Industries ($14.9B against $6.9B).
On earnings, Dycom Industries is cheaper: it trades at 20.7× trailing earnings, against 30.4× for MasTec.
Dycom Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (37.8% versus 25.7% for MasTec).
Dycom Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.8% compared with 2.8% at MasTec.
Dycom Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 13 for MasTec), 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 | DY | MTZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.9B | $14.9B |
| Share price | $227.70 | $186.06 |
| Change, 1 year | −21.1% | −15.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 171% | 98.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.95 | 1.20 |
| Employees | 20K | 36K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.7× (better) | 30.4× |
| P/S | 1.0× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 3.3× (better) | 3.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 15.6× |
| P/FCF | 14.7× (better) | 36.9× |
| PEG | 0.79 | 0.23 (better) |
| FCF yield | 6.8% (better) | 2.7% |
| Fair value | $283.10 | $199.80 |
| Margin of safety | 19.6% (better) | 6.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 37.8% (better) | 25.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.6% | 17.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 26.3% | 46.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 23.5% | 45.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 55.0% (better) | 3.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.5% (better) | 12.7% |
| Net margin | 4.8% (better) | 2.8% |
| FCF margin | 6.8% (better) | 2.3% |
| Return on equity | 19.2% (better) | 13.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.37 | 1.03 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.06 |
| Current ratio | 2.35 (better) | 1.39 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.65 (better) | 2.57 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.52% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.52% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.0% | 74.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.4% | 21.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$708K (better) | −$6.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.0% | 7.3% |
Go deeper
- DY stock overview
- DY income statement
- DY valuation and score
- MTZ stock overview
- MTZ income statement
- MTZ valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.