Emcor vs Quanta Services
EME and PWR side by side, both in industrials. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EME and PWR compare
Quanta Services is the larger company, worth 3.1 times as much as Emcor ($93.3B against $30.0B).
On earnings, Emcor is cheaper: it trades at 19.6× trailing earnings, against 56.2× for Quanta Services.
Quanta Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (37.1% versus 22.1% for Emcor).
Emcor keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.8% compared with 4.5% at Quanta Services.
Both pay dividends: Emcor yields 0.24% and Quanta Services 0.07%.
Emcor scores higher on the StockData Score (24 against 19 for Quanta Services), 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 | EME | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $30.0B | $93.3B |
| Share price | $679.55 | $620.73 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.5% | 38.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 414% | 429% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.09 | 1.12 |
| Employees | 44K | 70K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 24 (better) | 19 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.6× (better) | 56.2× |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 2.5× |
| P/B | 7.0× (better) | 8.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.1× (better) | 38.5× |
| P/FCF | 20.2× (better) | 29.6× |
| PEG | 0.38 (better) | 2.08 |
| FCF yield | 4.9% (better) | 3.4% |
| Fair value | $658.47 | $392.63 |
| Margin of safety | −3.2% (better) | −58.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 22.1% | 37.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.1% | 20.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 36.6% | 65.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 39.2% | 63.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 63.7% (better) | 17.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.6% (better) | 15.8% |
| Operating margin | 10.4% (better) | 6.8% |
| Net margin | 7.8% (better) | 4.5% |
| FCF margin | 7.5% | 8.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 40.6% (better) | 17.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 49.5% (better) | 13.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.66 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.84 |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.3× |
| Current ratio | 1.17 (better) | 1.16 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.95 (better) | 4.35 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.24% (better) | 0.07% |
| Payout ratio | 4.2% | 3.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 25.6% (better) | 14.3% |
| Buyback yield | 2.0% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.07% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.0% | 88.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.73% | 0.65% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$40.8M (better) | −$138M |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.7% | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- EME stock overview
- EME income statement
- EME valuation and score
- PWR stock overview
- PWR income statement
- PWR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.