Houlihan Lokey vs Lazard
HLI and LAZ side by side, both in services allied with the exchange of securities. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HLI and LAZ compare
Houlihan Lokey is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as Lazard ($9.6B against $4.2B).
On earnings, Lazard is cheaper: it trades at 18.8× trailing earnings, against 23.1× for Houlihan Lokey.
Lazard grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.6% versus −0.39% for Houlihan Lokey).
Houlihan Lokey keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.8% compared with 6.9% at Lazard.
Both pay dividends: Houlihan Lokey yields 1.9% and Lazard 5.2%.
Houlihan Lokey scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 8 for Lazard), 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 | HLI | LAZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.6B | $4.2B |
| Share price | $138.00 | $38.35 |
| Change, 1 year | −30.4% | −19.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 18.5% | −20.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.90 | 1.41 |
| Employees | 2,600 | 3,309 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.1× | 18.8× (better) |
| P/S | 3.8× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 4.2× (better) | 4.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.9× | 9.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 24.0× | 6.4× (better) |
| PEG | 1.27 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.2% | 15.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $123.78 | $37.77 |
| Margin of safety | −11.5% | −1.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.39% | 5.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.4% (better) | 3.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −5.4% (better) | −26.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −3.9% (better) | −29.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.5% (better) | −9.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 20.3% (better) | 9.3% |
| Net margin | 15.8% (better) | 6.9% |
| FCF margin | 15.7% | 19.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 17.7% | 27.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 27.2% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.4× |
| Altman Z-score | 5.40 (better) | 2.23 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% | 5.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 46.4% | 84.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 1.2% |
| Buyback yield | 2.5% (better) | 2.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.3% | 7.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 80.7% | 91.9% |
| Held by insiders | 49.4% | 4.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.6M (better) | −$8.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.8% | 8.3% |
Go deeper
- HLI stock overview
- HLI income statement
- HLI valuation and score
- LAZ stock overview
- LAZ income statement
- LAZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.