Genpact vs Huron Consulting
G and HURN side by side, both in management and public relations services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How G and HURN compare
Genpact is the larger company, worth 2.2 times as much as Huron Consulting ($6.7B against $3.1B).
On earnings, Genpact is cheaper: it trades at 11.8× trailing earnings, against 29.1× for Huron Consulting.
Huron Consulting grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.6% versus 6.5% for Genpact).
Genpact keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.1% compared with 6.4% at Huron Consulting.
Genpact pays a dividend yielding 1.4%; Huron Consulting does not pay one.
Genpact scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 13 for Huron Consulting), 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 | G | HURN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.7B | $3.1B |
| Share price | $39.62 | $194.43 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.6% | 14.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −21.6% | 262% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.66 | 0.44 |
| Employees | 147K | 305 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 21 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.8× (better) | 29.1× |
| P/S | 1.3× (better) | 1.7× |
| P/B | 2.6× (better) | 8.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.4× (better) | 17.3× |
| P/FCF | 11.6× (better) | 19.2× |
| PEG | 0.63 (better) | 1.71 |
| FCF yield | 8.6% (better) | 5.2% |
| Fair value | $56.35 | $158.60 |
| Margin of safety | 29.7% (better) | −22.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% | 13.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.5% | 14.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 8.2% | 9.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 12.0% | 16.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.5% (better) | 34.0% |
| Operating margin | 14.8% (better) | 10.3% |
| Net margin | 11.1% (better) | 6.4% |
| FCF margin | 10.9% (better) | 8.9% |
| Return on equity | 22.4% | 26.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 18.3% (better) | 12.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.45 (better) | 2.16 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.85 (better) | 3.57 |
| Current ratio | 2.00 (better) | 1.71 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.50 | 3.62 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.4% | – |
| Payout ratio | 20.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 11.8% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 7.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.4% | 7.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 99.3% |
| Held by insiders | 35.7% | 2.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.1M | −$7.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.2% | 5.3% |
Go deeper
- G stock overview
- G income statement
- G valuation and score
- HURN stock overview
- HURN income statement
- HURN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.