Flex vs Jabil
FLEX and JBL side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FLEX and JBL compare
Flex and Jabil are about the same size, with market caps of $31.9B and $28.6B.
On earnings, Flex is cheaper: it trades at 31.2× trailing earnings, against 34.0× for Jabil.
Jabil grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.8% versus 17.5% for Flex).
Jabil pays a dividend yielding 0.12%; Flex does not pay one.
Jabil scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 11 for Flex), 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 | FLEX | JBL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $31.9B | $28.6B |
| Share price | $86.48 | $272.72 |
| Change, 1 year | 30.8% | 22.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 375% | 318% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.55 | 1.31 |
| Employees | 150K | 30K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 31.2× (better) | 34.0× |
| P/S | 1.0× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 5.5× (better) | 21.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 21.7× | 14.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 40.8× | 21.9× (better) |
| PEG | 2.93 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.5% | 4.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $61.32 | $211.36 |
| Margin of safety | −41.0% | −29.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.5% | 17.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.0% (better) | 1.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 49.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 22.6% | 55.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.0% | 76.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 9.5% (better) | 9.2% |
| Operating margin | 5.1% (better) | 4.3% |
| Net margin | – | 2.6% |
| FCF margin | 2.5% | 3.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 66.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 17.2% | 35.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.90 (better) | 2.55 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.36 | 0.94 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 6.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.34 (better) | 0.98 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.57 | 2.77 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.12% |
| Payout ratio | – | 4.1% |
| Buyback yield | 1.3% | 3.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.3% | 3.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.4% | 97.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.77% | 2.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$118M | −$60.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.4% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- FLEX stock overview
- FLEX income statement
- FLEX valuation and score
- JBL stock overview
- JBL income statement
- JBL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.