Federated Hermes vs Virtus Investment Partners
FHI and VRTS 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 FHI and VRTS compare
Federated Hermes is the larger company, worth 5.7 times as much as Virtus Investment Partners ($4.7B against $825M).
On earnings, Virtus Investment Partners is cheaper: it trades at 7.7× trailing earnings, against 11.5× for Federated Hermes.
Federated Hermes grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.2% versus −8.2% for Virtus Investment Partners).
Both pay dividends: Federated Hermes yields 1.7% and Virtus Investment Partners 5.8%.
Federated Hermes scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 15 for Virtus Investment Partners), 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 | FHI | VRTS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.7B | $825M |
| Share price | $63.52 | $124.56 |
| Change, 1 year | 27.2% | −24.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 83.3% | −60.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.65 | 1.33 |
| Employees | 2,091 | 801 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 21 (better) | 15 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.5× | 7.7× (better) |
| P/S | 2.4× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 3.6× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.9× | 2.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 12.2× | – |
| PEG | 0.47 (better) | 0.87 |
| FCF yield | 8.2% (better) | −10.2% |
| Fair value | $78.27 | $276.21 |
| Margin of safety | 18.8% | 54.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.2% (better) | −8.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | 7.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 10.1% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.7% (better) | −17.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.7% | 14.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 27.8% (better) | 14.5% |
| Net margin | 21.3% | – |
| FCF margin | 19.6% (better) | −10.5% |
| Return on equity | 33.9% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 51.0% (better) | 15.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Current ratio | 2.48 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 5.55 (better) | 0.53 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.7% | 5.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 26.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 8 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −8.6% | 25.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 5.6% (better) | 4.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.3% | 10.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.9% | 90.7% |
| Held by insiders | 4.3% | 7.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$10.9M | −$3.7M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.1% | 7.7% |
Go deeper
- FHI stock overview
- FHI income statement
- FHI valuation and score
- VRTS stock overview
- VRTS income statement
- VRTS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.