HP vs International Business Machines
HPQ and IBM side by side, both in computer and office equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HPQ and IBM compare
International Business Machines is the larger company, worth 9.4 times as much as HP ($243B against $26.0B).
On earnings, HP is cheaper: it trades at 11.0× trailing earnings, against 22.9× for International Business Machines.
HP grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.1% versus 7.9% for International Business Machines).
International Business Machines keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.5% compared with 4.1% at HP.
Both pay dividends: HP yields 4.2% and International Business Machines 2.6%.
International Business Machines scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 15 for HP), 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 | HPQ | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $26.0B | $243B |
| Share price | $28.78 | $258.28 |
| Change, 1 year | 3.9% | −17.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −9.9% | 109% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.03 | 0.72 |
| Employees | 55K | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.0× (better) | 22.9× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | – | 7.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.5× | – |
| P/FCF | 6.7× (better) | 17.6× |
| PEG | – | 0.27 |
| FCF yield | 15.0% (better) | 5.7% |
| Fair value | $50.63 | $259.58 |
| Margin of safety | 43.2% (better) | 0.50% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.1% (better) | 7.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.48% | 4.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −7.2% | 83.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −4.4% | 83.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.0% | 12.4% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.9% | 58.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 5.4% | – |
| Net margin | 4.1% | 15.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 6.6% | 20.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 34.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 52.7% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.97 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.20 | – |
| Interest coverage | 8.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.79 | 0.79 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.61 | 3.07 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.2% (better) | 2.6% |
| Payout ratio | 44.7% | 58.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 9 | 9 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.6% (better) | 0.61% |
| Buyback yield | 4.7% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 8.9% (better) | 2.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.9% | 65.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.24% | 0.10% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$4.9M (better) | −$5.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.1% | 2.6% |
Go deeper
- HPQ stock overview
- HPQ income statement
- HPQ valuation and score
- IBM stock overview
- IBM income statement
- IBM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.