EnerSys vs Novanta
ENS and NOVT side by side, both in electronic and other electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ENS and NOVT compare
EnerSys and Novanta are about the same size, with market caps of $5.2B and $4.5B.
On earnings, EnerSys is cheaper: it trades at 14.4× trailing earnings, against 90.7× for Novanta.
Novanta grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.2% versus 1.8% for EnerSys).
EnerSys keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.9% compared with 4.9% at Novanta.
EnerSys pays a dividend yielding 0.75%; Novanta does not pay one.
EnerSys scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 7 for Novanta), 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 | ENS | NOVT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.2B | $4.5B |
| Share price | $143.00 | $118.88 |
| Change, 1 year | 3.0% | 7.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 78.7% | −28.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.17 | 1.60 |
| Employees | 9,682 | 3,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 14.4× (better) | 90.7× |
| P/S | 1.4× (better) | 4.1× |
| P/B | 2.7× (better) | 2.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.0× (better) | 32.8× |
| P/FCF | 7.9× (better) | 32.0× |
| PEG | 0.66 | – |
| FCF yield | 12.6% (better) | 3.1% |
| Fair value | $214.60 | $94.71 |
| Margin of safety | 33.4% (better) | −25.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.8% | 13.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.7% | 10.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 10.8% (better) | 0.58% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 16.5% (better) | −10.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 18.3% (better) | 3.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 30.7% | 44.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 13.6% (better) | 7.8% |
| Net margin | 9.9% (better) | 4.9% |
| FCF margin | 17.1% (better) | 12.9% |
| Return on equity | 19.8% (better) | 4.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 16.9% (better) | 3.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.43 (better) | 0.51 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.85 (better) | 4.32 |
| Interest coverage | 10.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.39 (better) | 1.18 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.68 (better) | 2.37 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.75% | – |
| Payout ratio | 10.5% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | 6.5% (better) | 0.84% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.2% (better) | 0.84% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 119% |
| Held by insiders | 1.7% | 0.73% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$990K (better) | −$11.6M |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.2% | – |
Go deeper
- ENS stock overview
- ENS income statement
- ENS valuation and score
- NOVT stock overview
- NOVT income statement
- NOVT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.