Expeditors International of Washington vs Hub
EXPD and HUBG side by side, both in transportation services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EXPD and HUBG compare
Expeditors International of Washington is the larger company, worth 16019 times as much as Hub ($25.8B against $1.6M).
Expeditors International of Washington grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.8% versus −5.8% for Hub).
Expeditors International of Washington keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.6% compared with 2.8% at Hub.
Both pay dividends: Expeditors International of Washington yields 0.79% and Hub 1.9%.
Expeditors International of Washington scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 13 for Hub), 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 | EXPD | HUBG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $25.8B | $1.6M |
| Share price | $198.85 | $26.71 |
| Change, 1 year | 69.1% | −25.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 58.9% | −35.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.85 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 20K | 6,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 28.9× | – |
| P/S | 2.1× | 0.0× (better) |
| P/B | 12.2× | 0.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.0× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 28.0× | 0.0× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.6% | 7029% (better) |
| Fair value | $126.10 | $31092.10 |
| Margin of safety | −57.7% | 99.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.8% (better) | −5.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.9% (better) | 1.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 7.7% (better) | −3.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 12.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.9% (better) | 1.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 9.8% (better) | 3.8% |
| Net margin | 7.6% (better) | 2.8% |
| FCF margin | 7.7% (better) | 3.0% |
| Return on equity | 42.6% (better) | 6.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 83.7% (better) | 6.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.15 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.45 |
| Interest coverage | – | 11.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.57 (better) | 1.47 |
| Altman Z-score | 9.22 (better) | 2.56 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.79% | 1.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 28.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.5% | 856% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.3% | 858% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.6% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 0.73% | 4.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.3M | −$1.2M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.4% | 7.5% |
Go deeper
- EXPD stock overview
- EXPD income statement
- EXPD valuation and score
- HUBG stock overview
- HUBG income statement
- HUBG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.