Illumina vs Mettler Toledo International
ILMN and MTD side by side, both in laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ILMN and MTD compare
Illumina and Mettler Toledo International are about the same size, with market caps of $35.6B and $33.6B.
On earnings, Mettler Toledo International is cheaper: it trades at 37.7× trailing earnings, against 40.5× for Illumina.
Mettler Toledo International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.9% versus 5.8% for Illumina).
Mettler Toledo International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.9% compared with 19.7% at Illumina.
Illumina scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 10 for Mettler Toledo International), 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 | ILMN | MTD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $35.6B | $33.6B |
| Share price | $235.99 | $1674.81 |
| Change, 1 year | 148% | 20.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −41.7% | 10.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.35 | 1.16 |
| Employees | 52 | 17K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 40.5× | 37.7× (better) |
| P/S | 7.9× (better) | 8.1× |
| P/B | 11.3× (better) | 2617× |
| EV/EBITDA | 37.6× | – |
| P/FCF | 33.7× (better) | 38.8× |
| PEG | – | 12.30 |
| FCF yield | 3.0% (better) | 2.6% |
| Fair value | $191.74 | – |
| Margin of safety | −23.1% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.8% | 6.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.0% (better) | 5.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 27.5% (better) | 9.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 30.7% (better) | 12.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 4.1% | 11.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 67.9% (better) | 60.3% |
| Operating margin | 21.2% | – |
| Net margin | 19.7% | 21.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 23.3% (better) | 20.9% |
| Return on equity | 32.4% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 28.5% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.57 (better) | 164.70 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.47 | – |
| Interest coverage | 9.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.63 (better) | 1.12 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.33 | 10.35 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 1.1% | 2.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.1% | 2.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 102% |
| Held by insiders | 0.86% | 0.37% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$593M | −$35.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.3% | 3.5% |
Go deeper
- ILMN stock overview
- ILMN income statement
- ILMN valuation and score
- MTD stock overview
- MTD income statement
- MTD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.