Forgent Power Solutions vs Littelfuse
FPS and LFUS side by side, both in electronic and other electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FPS and LFUS compare
Littelfuse is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Forgent Power Solutions ($10.1B against $7.5B).
Forgent Power Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (83.1% versus 18.7% for Littelfuse).
Forgent Power Solutions keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.4% compared with 1.4% at Littelfuse.
Littelfuse pays a dividend yielding 0.77%; Forgent Power Solutions does not pay one.
Littelfuse scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 8 for Forgent Power Solutions), 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 | FPS | LFUS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.5B | $10.1B |
| Share price | $24.57 | $397.70 |
| Change, 1 year | – | 61.4% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 23.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | – | 1.31 |
| Employees | 450 | 17K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 406× |
| P/S | 4.6× | 3.7× (better) |
| P/B | 10.5× | 3.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 27.8× (better) | 65.4× |
| P/FCF | 61.5× | 19.1× (better) |
| FCF yield | 1.6% | 5.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $17.38 | $143.58 |
| Margin of safety | −41.3% (better) | −177% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 83.1% (better) | 18.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 10.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 534% (better) | −68.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −79.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 34.5% | 40.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 14.3% (better) | 5.5% |
| Net margin | 7.4% (better) | 1.4% |
| FCF margin | 7.5% | 19.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 16.9% (better) | 1.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 17.1% (better) | 2.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.82 | 0.23 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.33 (better) | −1.29 |
| Interest coverage | 4.3× | 5.7× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.46 | 2.67 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.46 | 5.76 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.77% |
| Payout ratio | – | 203% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 7 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 8.6% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.77% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 55.9% | 99.7% |
| Held by insiders | – | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$650M | −$36.1M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 5.4% |
Go deeper
- FPS stock overview
- FPS income statement
- FPS valuation and score
- LFUS stock overview
- LFUS income statement
- LFUS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.