Hubbell vs Marvell Technology
HUBB and MRVL side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HUBB and MRVL compare
Marvell Technology is the larger company, worth 6.0 times as much as Hubbell ($137B against $23.1B).
On earnings, Hubbell is cheaper: it trades at 25.6× trailing earnings, against 51.7× for Marvell Technology.
Marvell Technology grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (30.6% versus 16.0% for Hubbell).
Marvell Technology keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 27.9% compared with 13.8% at Hubbell.
Both pay dividends: Hubbell yields 1.3% and Marvell Technology 0.15%.
Hubbell scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 16 for Marvell Technology), 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 | HUBB | MRVL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $23.1B | $137B |
| Share price | $436.98 | $156.76 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.5% | 75.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 108% | 110% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.96 | 2.07 |
| Employees | 18K | 7,480 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 16 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.6× (better) | 51.7× |
| P/S | 3.5× (better) | 14.5× |
| P/B | 5.6× (better) | 7.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.3× (better) | 88.7× |
| P/FCF | 24.9× (better) | 79.5× |
| PEG | 1.42 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.0% (better) | 1.3% |
| Fair value | $448.21 | $72.22 |
| Margin of safety | 2.5% (better) | −117% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 16.0% | 30.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.7% | 22.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 5.6% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 6.5% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.4% | 52.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 20.2% (better) | 16.5% |
| Net margin | 13.8% | 27.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.1% | 18.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 23.3% (better) | 16.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 15.1% (better) | 6.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.25 | 0.27 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.95 | 0.66 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 7.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.53 | 3.17 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.81 | 9.99 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.15% |
| Payout ratio | – | 7.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 0.88% | 1.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% (better) | 1.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.7% | 79.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.41% | 0.37% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.3M (better) | −$57.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.0% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- HUBB stock overview
- HUBB income statement
- HUBB valuation and score
- MRVL stock overview
- MRVL income statement
- MRVL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.