Evercore vs Lazard
EVR and LAZ side by side, both in services allied with the exchange of securities. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EVR and LAZ compare
Evercore is the larger company, worth 2.6 times as much as Lazard ($11.2B against $4.2B).
On earnings, Evercore is cheaper: it trades at 16.4× trailing earnings, against 18.8× for Lazard.
Evercore grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (45.7% versus 5.6% for Lazard).
Evercore keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.7% compared with 6.9% at Lazard.
Both pay dividends: Evercore yields 1.2% and Lazard 5.2%.
Evercore scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 8 for Lazard), 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 | EVR | LAZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.2B | $4.2B |
| Share price | $290.50 | $38.35 |
| Change, 1 year | −0.68% | −19.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 92.1% | −20.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.49 | 1.41 |
| Employees | 2,570 | 3,309 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.4× (better) | 18.8× |
| P/S | 2.4× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 6.0× | 4.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.7× (better) | 9.2× |
| P/FCF | 6.9× | 6.4× (better) |
| PEG | 2.50 | – |
| FCF yield | 14.6% | 15.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $329.65 | $37.77 |
| Margin of safety | 11.9% (better) | −1.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 45.7% (better) | 5.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.2% (better) | 3.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 61.2% (better) | −26.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 60.8% (better) | −29.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 11.3% (better) | −9.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 9.3% |
| Net margin | 15.7% (better) | 6.9% |
| FCF margin | 34.3% (better) | 19.9% |
| Return on equity | 42.4% (better) | 27.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.29 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −1.69 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.4× |
| Current ratio | 2.47 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 5.02 (better) | 2.23 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | 5.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 20.1% | 84.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.2% (better) | 1.2% |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 7.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.3% | 91.9% |
| Held by insiders | 13.9% | 4.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$4.5M (better) | −$8.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 8.3% |
Go deeper
- EVR stock overview
- EVR income statement
- EVR valuation and score
- LAZ stock overview
- LAZ income statement
- LAZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.