Federal Realty Investment Trust vs Regency Centers
FRT and REG side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FRT and REG compare
Regency Centers is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Federal Realty Investment Trust ($13.7B against $9.6B).
Regency Centers grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.2% versus 7.4% for Federal Realty Investment Trust).
Federal Realty Investment Trust keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 38.6% compared with 34.4% at Regency Centers.
Both pay dividends: Federal Realty Investment Trust yields 4.1% and Regency Centers 4.0%.
Federal Realty Investment Trust scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 14 for Regency Centers), 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 | FRT | REG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.6B | $13.7B |
| Share price | $110.19 | $74.59 |
| Change, 1 year | 15.4% | 7.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −16.9% | −1.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.76 | 0.67 |
| Employees | 314 | 507 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.2× | – |
| P/S | 7.3× (better) | 8.4× |
| P/B | 2.9× | 2.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.8× | 8.6× (better) |
| Fair value | $124.79 | $73.72 |
| Margin of safety | 11.7% (better) | −1.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.4% | 8.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.9% (better) | 8.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 67.6% (better) | 37.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 64.2% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 23.6% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 53.6% | 72.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 38.6% (better) | 34.4% |
| Return on equity | 15.6% (better) | 8.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 17.7% (better) | 13.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 3.7× | – |
| Altman Z-score | 1.44 | 1.79 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.1% (better) | 4.0% |
| Payout ratio | – | 95.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | 13 (better) | 12 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 1.0% | 3.8% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.1% (better) | 4.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.4% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 0.93% | 0.52% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$40.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.5% | – |
Go deeper
- FRT stock overview
- FRT income statement
- FRT valuation and score
- REG stock overview
- REG income statement
- REG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.