Hubbell vs Vertiv
HUBB and VRT 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 VRT compare
Vertiv is the larger company, worth 4.0 times as much as Hubbell ($89.5B against $22.3B).
On earnings, Hubbell is cheaper: it trades at 25.0× trailing earnings, against 52.6× for Vertiv.
Vertiv grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (26.2% versus 10.6% for Hubbell).
Vertiv keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.1% compared with 14.5% at Hubbell.
Both pay dividends: Hubbell yields 1.3% and Vertiv 0.11%.
Vertiv scores higher on the StockData Score (19 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 | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $22.3B | $89.5B |
| Share price | $422.44 | $232.50 |
| Change, 1 year | −10.6% | 16.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 105% | 741% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.96 | 2.15 |
| Employees | 18K | 34K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.0× (better) | 52.6× |
| P/S | 3.6× (better) | 7.8× |
| P/B | 5.7× (better) | 18.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.3× (better) | 35.0× |
| P/FCF | 24.8× (better) | 30.6× |
| PEG | 1.39 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.0% (better) | 3.3% |
| Fair value | $443.55 | $196.85 |
| Margin of safety | 4.8% (better) | −18.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.6% | 26.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.7% | 18.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 8.4% | 113% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 9.5% | 111% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.2% | 38.0% (better) |
| Operating margin | 20.2% (better) | 18.9% |
| Net margin | 14.5% | 15.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.5% | 25.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 24.4% | 43.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 14.5% | 38.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.37 | 0.62 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.33 | 0.05 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 41.4× |
| Current ratio | 1.61 (better) | 1.38 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.68 | 6.36 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.11% |
| Payout ratio | – | 5.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.91% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.11% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.7% | 81.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.41% | 1.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$20.2M (better) | −$128M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.9% | 3.8% |
Go deeper
- HUBB stock overview
- HUBB income statement
- HUBB valuation and score
- VRT stock overview
- VRT income statement
- VRT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.