Emerson Electric vs Sanmina
EMR and SANM side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EMR and SANM compare
Emerson Electric is the larger company, worth 11 times as much as Sanmina ($92.8B against $8.5B).
On earnings, Sanmina is cheaper: it trades at 28.3× trailing earnings, against 34.7× for Emerson Electric.
Sanmina grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (58.6% versus 5.4% for Emerson Electric).
Emerson Electric keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.2% compared with 2.4% at Sanmina.
Emerson Electric pays a dividend yielding 1.3%; Sanmina does not pay one.
Emerson Electric scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 10 for Sanmina), 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 | EMR | SANM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $92.8B | $8.5B |
| Share price | $166.38 | $158.31 |
| Change, 1 year | 25.6% | −6.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 78.3% | 309% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.09 | 1.29 |
| Employees | 70K | 39K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 34.7× | 28.3× (better) |
| P/S | 4.9× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | 4.5× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.8× | 12.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 26.3× | 14.3× (better) |
| PEG | – | 5.25 |
| FCF yield | 3.8% | 7.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $129.24 | $156.61 |
| Margin of safety | −28.7% | −1.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.4% | 58.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.0% (better) | 3.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 18.5% | 18.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 19.8% (better) | 19.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 4.6% | 18.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 53.4% (better) | 9.0% |
| Operating margin | – | 4.2% |
| Net margin | 14.2% (better) | 2.4% |
| FCF margin | 18.6% (better) | 4.7% |
| Return on equity | 13.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.59 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.09 | 0.47 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.6× |
| Current ratio | 0.94 | 1.78 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.48 (better) | 2.64 |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 (better) | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | – |
| Payout ratio | 46.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 17 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 1.9% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.1% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 82.5% | 93.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.34% | 3.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.9M (better) | −$42.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.8% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- EMR stock overview
- EMR income statement
- EMR valuation and score
- SANM stock overview
- SANM income statement
- SANM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.