Fortive vs Sensata Technologies
FTV and ST side by side, both in laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FTV and ST compare
Fortive is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Sensata Technologies ($19.9B against $5.9B).
On earnings, Fortive is cheaper: it trades at 39.0× trailing earnings, against 67.1× for Sensata Technologies.
Fortive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.6% versus 0.80% for Sensata Technologies).
Fortive keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.4% compared with 2.4% at Sensata Technologies.
Both pay dividends: Fortive yields 0.38% and Sensata Technologies 1.2%.
Fortive scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 11 for Sensata Technologies), 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 | FTV | ST |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $19.9B | $5.9B |
| Share price | $65.84 | $40.27 |
| Change, 1 year | 33.9% | 23.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −16.4% | −32.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 10K | 21K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 39.0× (better) | 67.1× |
| P/S | 4.6× | 1.6× (better) |
| P/B | 3.3× | 2.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.7× | 15.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 21.2× | 10.1× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.7% | 9.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $69.80 | $37.27 |
| Margin of safety | 5.7% (better) | −8.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.6% (better) | 0.80% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −2.1% | 4.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −30.5% | −19.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −23.9% | −20.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −17.4% (better) | −27.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 63.2% (better) | 29.5% |
| Operating margin | 18.2% (better) | 7.5% |
| Net margin | 12.4% (better) | 2.4% |
| FCF margin | 21.7% (better) | 15.3% |
| Return on equity | 6.5% (better) | 3.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 6.3% (better) | 2.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.58 (better) | 0.82 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.54 (better) | 3.86 |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 | 2.29 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.46 (better) | 2.40 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.38% | 1.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 10.6% | 77.8% |
| Buyback yield | 9.9% (better) | 0.43% |
| Shareholder yield | 10.3% (better) | 1.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 109% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 0.58% | 1.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$6.8M (better) | −$8.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.7% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- FTV stock overview
- FTV income statement
- FTV valuation and score
- ST stock overview
- ST income statement
- ST valuation and score
Other comparisons
- AME vs ST
- CGNX vs ST
- DHR vs FTV
- FTV vs KEYS
- FTV vs MKSI
- FTV vs RAL
- FTV vs ROP
- KEYS vs ST
- MKSI vs ST
- RAL vs ST
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.