Ingersoll Rand vs Zebra Technologies
IR and ZBRA side by side, both in general industrial machinery and equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How IR and ZBRA compare
Ingersoll Rand is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Zebra Technologies ($31.1B against $17.1B).
On earnings, Ingersoll Rand is cheaper: it trades at 22.5× trailing earnings, against 33.1× for Zebra Technologies.
Zebra Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.7% versus 8.0% for Ingersoll Rand).
Ingersoll Rand keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.2% compared with 9.2% at Zebra Technologies.
Ingersoll Rand pays a dividend yielding 0.10%; Zebra Technologies does not pay one.
Ingersoll Rand scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 10 for Zebra Technologies), 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 | IR | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $31.1B | $17.1B |
| Share price | $80.05 | $361.26 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.44% | 33.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 39.8% | −40.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.14 | 1.63 |
| Employees | 21K | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.5× (better) | 33.1× |
| P/S | 3.9× | 2.9× (better) |
| P/B | 3.0× (better) | 5.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.4× (better) | 18.4× |
| P/FCF | 20.5× | 18.9× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.9% | 5.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $127.42 | $344.42 |
| Margin of safety | 37.2% (better) | −4.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.0% | 12.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.0% (better) | 3.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 154% (better) | −1.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 163% (better) | 3.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −2.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 43.1% | 49.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 22.9% (better) | 14.7% |
| Net margin | 17.2% (better) | 9.2% |
| FCF margin | 18.8% (better) | 15.5% |
| Return on equity | 13.4% | 15.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 11.5% | 11.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.45 (better) | 0.81 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.42 (better) | 2.44 |
| Interest coverage | 7.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.69 (better) | 0.52 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.51 | 3.62 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.10% | – |
| Payout ratio | 2.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.2% | 5.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% | 5.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 0.21% | 1.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$58.5M | −$2.0M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 3.5% |
Go deeper
- IR stock overview
- IR income statement
- IR valuation and score
- ZBRA stock overview
- ZBRA income statement
- ZBRA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.