Iqvia vs Medpace
IQV and MEDP side by side, both in engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How IQV and MEDP compare
Iqvia is the larger company, worth 2.4 times as much as Medpace ($44.0B against $18.2B).
On earnings, Iqvia is cheaper: it trades at 33.2× trailing earnings, against 38.2× for Medpace.
Medpace grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (24.7% versus 8.2% for Iqvia).
Medpace keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.7% compared with 8.1% at Iqvia.
Medpace scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 8 for Iqvia), 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 | IQV | MEDP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $44.0B | $18.2B |
| Share price | $267.33 | $652.01 |
| Change, 1 year | 22.7% | 11.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 8.1% | 189% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.17 | 1.39 |
| Employees | 93K | 6,200 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 | 4 |
| Performance score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 33.2× (better) | 38.2× |
| P/S | 2.6× (better) | 6.5× |
| P/B | 7.1× (better) | 41.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.2× (better) | 30.3× |
| P/FCF | 20.1× (better) | 25.8× |
| PEG | 2.99 | 1.36 (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.0% (better) | 3.9% |
| Fair value | $222.72 | $430.99 |
| Margin of safety | −20.0% (better) | −51.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.2% | 24.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.5% | 22.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.2% | 17.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 16.6% | 26.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 40.5% (better) | 31.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.0% | – |
| Operating margin | 13.0% | 21.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.1% | 17.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 12.9% | 25.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 23.0% | 162% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 9.4% | 1674% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.59 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.11 | – |
| Interest coverage | 2.9× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.71 | 0.73 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.20 | 8.44 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 2.6% (better) | 1.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.6% (better) | 1.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 95.3% | 88.5% |
| Held by insiders | 1.1% | 20.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$38.0M (better) | −$409M |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.0% | 7.2% |
Go deeper
- IQV stock overview
- IQV income statement
- IQV valuation and score
- MEDP stock overview
- MEDP income statement
- MEDP valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.