Hubbell vs Otis Worldwide
HUBB and OTIS side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HUBB and OTIS compare
Otis Worldwide is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Hubbell ($28.8B against $22.3B).
On earnings, Otis Worldwide is cheaper: it trades at 18.8× trailing earnings, against 25.0× for Hubbell.
Hubbell grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.6% versus 5.8% for Otis Worldwide).
Hubbell keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.5% compared with 10.3% at Otis Worldwide.
Both pay dividends: Hubbell yields 1.3% and Otis Worldwide 2.3%.
Otis Worldwide scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 16 for Hubbell), 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 | OTIS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $22.3B | $28.8B |
| Share price | $422.44 | $75.75 |
| Change, 1 year | −10.6% | −18.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 105% | −7.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.96 | 0.75 |
| Employees | 18K | 72K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.0× | 18.8× (better) |
| P/S | 3.6× | 1.9× (better) |
| P/B | 5.7× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.3× | 14.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 24.8× | 17.2× (better) |
| PEG | 1.39 (better) | 3.28 |
| FCF yield | 4.0% | 5.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $443.55 | $104.71 |
| Margin of safety | 4.8% | 27.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.6% (better) | 5.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.7% (better) | 2.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 8.4% | 15.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 9.5% | 18.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.8% (better) | 11.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.2% | – |
| Operating margin | 20.2% (better) | 15.3% |
| Net margin | 14.5% (better) | 10.3% |
| FCF margin | 14.5% (better) | 11.1% |
| Return on equity | 24.4% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 14.5% | 93.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.37 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.33 | 2.97 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 9.6× |
| Current ratio | 1.61 (better) | 0.86 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.68 | 2.96 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | 2.3% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 42.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 6 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | 22.4% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.91% | 2.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% | 5.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.7% | 93.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.41% | 0.14% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$20.2M | −$17.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.9% | 4.5% |
Go deeper
- HUBB stock overview
- HUBB income statement
- HUBB valuation and score
- OTIS stock overview
- OTIS income statement
- OTIS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.