Franklin Covey vs Information Services
FC and III side by side, both in management and public relations services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FC and III compare
Information Services is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Franklin Covey ($304M against $171M).
On earnings, Information Services is cheaper: it trades at 26.1× trailing earnings, against 94.4× for Franklin Covey.
Information Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.8% versus −6.1% for Franklin Covey).
Information Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.7% compared with 0.83% at Franklin Covey.
Information Services pays a dividend yielding 2.9%; Franklin Covey does not pay one.
Information Services scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 8 for Franklin Covey), 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 | FC | III |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $171M | $304M |
| Share price | $15.10 | $6.27 |
| Change, 1 year | 1.3% | 20.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −68.5% | −34.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.98 | 1.04 |
| Employees | 1,120 | 1,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 94.4× | 26.1× (better) |
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 1.2× |
| P/B | 4.0× | 3.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 24.6× | 12.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 8.8× (better) | 16.0× |
| FCF yield | 11.3% (better) | 6.3% |
| Fair value | $17.85 | $5.23 |
| Margin of safety | 15.4% (better) | −19.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −6.1% | 4.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.1% (better) | −0.36% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −79.5% | 22.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −79.7% | 26.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 25.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 75.2% (better) | 45.2% |
| Operating margin | 2.4% | 8.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.83% | 4.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.3% | 7.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 4.0% | 12.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 10.2% | 10.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.63 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.14 |
| Interest coverage | 19.1× (better) | 6.2× |
| Current ratio | 0.66 | 2.80 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.68 | 2.99 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.9% |
| Payout ratio | – | 76.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 18.5% (better) | 2.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 18.5% (better) | 5.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.6% | 67.7% |
| Held by insiders | 44.7% | 29.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $0 (better) | −$2.7M |
| Short interest, % of float | 13.3% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- FC stock overview
- FC income statement
- FC valuation and score
- III stock overview
- III income statement
- III valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.