IPG Photonics vs MACOM Technology Solutions
IPGP and MTSI 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 IPGP and MTSI compare
MACOM Technology Solutions is the larger company, worth 5.8 times as much as IPG Photonics ($17.9B against $3.1B).
On earnings, MACOM Technology Solutions is cheaper: it trades at 74.9× trailing earnings, against 112× for IPG Photonics.
MACOM Technology Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (28.4% versus 13.0% for IPG Photonics).
MACOM Technology Solutions keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.7% compared with 2.6% at IPG Photonics.
MACOM Technology Solutions scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 9 for IPG Photonics), 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 | IPGP | MTSI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.1B | $17.9B |
| Share price | $72.59 | $234.39 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.0% | 53.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −57.6% | 219% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.22 | 1.48 |
| Employees | 4,840 | 2,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 112× | 74.9× (better) |
| P/S | 2.9× (better) | 15.4× |
| P/B | 1.5× (better) | 11.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 29.5× (better) | 66.9× |
| P/FCF | 148× | 87.7× (better) |
| FCF yield | 0.67% | 1.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $37.20 | $123.70 |
| Margin of safety | −95.2% | −89.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.0% | 28.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −3.5% | 12.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −24.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.4% | 56.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 0.75% | 18.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.6% | 20.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.9% | 17.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 1.3% | 17.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 0.45% | 15.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.22 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −1.23 |
| Current ratio | 6.18 (better) | 2.34 |
| Altman Z-score | 8.83 | 18.94 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 79.4% | 95.9% |
| Held by insiders | 69.9% | 6.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$70.7M (better) | −$320M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 29.1% | 4.8% |
Go deeper
- IPGP stock overview
- IPGP income statement
- IPGP valuation and score
- MTSI stock overview
- MTSI income statement
- MTSI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.