Global Water Resources vs Pure Cycle
GWRS and PCYO side by side, both in water supply. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GWRS and PCYO compare
Pure Cycle is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Global Water Resources ($258M against $223M).
On earnings, Pure Cycle is cheaper: it trades at 17.5× trailing earnings, against 64.5× for Global Water Resources.
Pure Cycle grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.9% versus 10.8% for Global Water Resources).
Pure Cycle keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 43.7% compared with 5.2% at Global Water Resources.
Global Water Resources pays a dividend yielding 3.9%; Pure Cycle does not pay one.
Pure Cycle scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 6 for Global Water Resources), 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 | GWRS | PCYO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $223M | $258M |
| Share price | $7.74 | $10.70 |
| Change, 1 year | −22.1% | −1.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −59.3% | −32.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.68 | 0.80 |
| Employees | 126 | 44 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 64.5× | 17.5× (better) |
| P/S | 3.7× (better) | 7.6× |
| P/B | 2.6× | 1.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.0× (better) | 17.5× |
| PEG | – | 1.67 |
| FCF yield | −10.9% | – |
| Fair value | $6.98 | $13.22 |
| Margin of safety | −10.8% | 19.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.8% | 22.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.6% (better) | 0.18% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −43.7% | 8.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −45.5% | 10.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 17.1% (better) | 14.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 62.0% |
| Operating margin | 13.6% | 37.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.2% | 43.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | −40.5% | – |
| Return on equity | 3.9% | 10.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 3.0% | 6.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.55 | 0.09 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.17 | 0.38 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 1.3× | 25.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.68 | 1.53 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.50 | 6.61 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.9% | – |
| Payout ratio | 276% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.68% | – |
| Buyback yield | −5.9% | – |
| Shareholder yield | −1.9% | 0.00% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 26.0% | 54.3% |
| Held by insiders | 55.5% | 29.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $7.2M (better) | −$757K |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.9% | 2.8% |
Go deeper
- GWRS stock overview
- GWRS income statement
- GWRS valuation and score
- PCYO stock overview
- PCYO income statement
- PCYO valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.