Energy Services of America vs MasTec
ESOA 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 ESOA and MTZ compare
MasTec is the larger company, worth 85 times as much as Energy Services of America ($14.9B against $175M).
MasTec grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (25.7% versus 21.2% for Energy Services of America).
Energy Services of America pays a dividend yielding 1.5%; MasTec does not pay one.
Energy Services of America 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 | ESOA | MTZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $175M | $14.9B |
| Share price | $9.40 | $186.06 |
| Change, 1 year | −18.4% | −15.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 506% | 98.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.45 | 1.20 |
| Employees | 1,418 | 36K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 30.4× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 0.9× |
| P/B | 2.1× (better) | 3.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.4× (better) | 15.6× |
| P/FCF | 32.5× (better) | 36.9× |
| PEG | – | 0.23 |
| FCF yield | 3.1% (better) | 2.7% |
| Fair value | $10.28 | $199.80 |
| Margin of safety | 8.6% (better) | 6.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 21.2% | 25.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 28.1% (better) | 17.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 46.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 45.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −30.5% | 3.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 11.8% | 12.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 3.9% | – |
| Net margin | – | 2.8% |
| FCF margin | 1.2% | 2.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 13.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 12.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.54 (better) | 1.03 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.69 (better) | 3.06 |
| Interest coverage | 5.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.50 (better) | 1.39 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.46 (better) | 2.57 |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.5% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.48% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.0% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 50.1% | 74.2% |
| Held by insiders | 19.2% | 21.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$4.4M (better) | −$6.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.6% | 7.3% |
Go deeper
- ESOA stock overview
- ESOA income statement
- ESOA valuation and score
- MTZ stock overview
- MTZ income statement
- MTZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.