Fortive vs Trimble
FTV and TRMB 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 TRMB compare
Fortive is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Trimble ($19.9B against $15.1B).
Trimble grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.8% versus 5.6% for Fortive).
Fortive keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.4% compared with −2.8% at Trimble.
Fortive pays a dividend yielding 0.38%; Trimble does not pay one.
Fortive scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 12 for Trimble), 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 | TRMB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $19.9B | $15.1B |
| Share price | $65.84 | $64.94 |
| Change, 1 year | 33.9% | −18.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −16.4% | −24.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 1.33 |
| Employees | 10K | 12K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 39.0× | – |
| P/S | 4.6× | 4.0× (better) |
| P/B | 3.3× | 3.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.7× (better) | 19.4× |
| P/FCF | 21.2× | 19.6× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.7% | 5.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $69.80 | $83.81 |
| Margin of safety | 5.7% | 22.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.6% | 5.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −2.1% | 2.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −30.5% (better) | −137% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −23.9% (better) | −142% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −17.4% | 2.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 69.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 18.2% (better) | 17.0% |
| Net margin | 12.4% (better) | −2.8% |
| FCF margin | 21.7% (better) | 20.4% |
| Return on equity | 6.5% (better) | −1.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 6.3% | 7.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.58 | 0.29 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.54 | 1.47 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 (better) | 0.95 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.46 | 3.77 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.38% | – |
| Payout ratio | 10.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | 9.9% (better) | 3.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 10.3% (better) | 3.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 109% | 100% |
| Held by insiders | 0.58% | 0.41% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$6.8M | −$5.3M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.7% | 4.3% |
Go deeper
- FTV stock overview
- FTV income statement
- FTV valuation and score
- TRMB stock overview
- TRMB income statement
- TRMB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.