Fluor vs MasTec
FLR and MTZ side by side, both in heavy construction other than building construction contractors. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FLR and MTZ compare
MasTec is the larger company, worth 2.4 times as much as Fluor ($14.9B against $6.3B).
MasTec grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (25.7% versus −4.8% for Fluor).
MasTec keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.8% compared with −12.8% at Fluor.
MasTec scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 7 for Fluor), 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 | FLR | MTZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.3B | $14.9B |
| Share price | $46.86 | $186.06 |
| Change, 1 year | −5.0% | −15.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 103% | 98.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.08 | 1.20 |
| Employees | – | 36K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 30.4× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 0.9× |
| P/B | 2.3× (better) | 3.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 15.6× |
| P/FCF | – | 36.9× |
| PEG | – | 0.23 |
| FCF yield | −5.3% | 2.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $74.61 | $199.80 |
| Margin of safety | 37.2% (better) | 6.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.8% | 25.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.36% | 17.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −148% | 46.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 45.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 3.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | −0.80% | 12.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | −1.4% | – |
| Net margin | −12.8% | 2.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | −2.1% | 2.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | −46.2% | 13.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −7.9% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.40 (better) | 1.03 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.06 |
| Interest coverage | −5.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.80 (better) | 1.39 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.71 (better) | 2.57 |
| Piotroski F-score | 2 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 20.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 20.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.1% | 74.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.8% | 21.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$4.0M (better) | −$6.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.2% | 7.3% |
Go deeper
- FLR stock overview
- FLR income statement
- FLR valuation and score
- MTZ stock overview
- MTZ income statement
- MTZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.