Iron Mountain vs Prologis
IRM and PLD side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How IRM and PLD compare
Prologis is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Iron Mountain ($119B against $34.7B).
On earnings, Prologis is cheaper: it trades at 28.5× trailing earnings, against 83.3× for Iron Mountain.
Iron Mountain grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.4% versus 7.3% for Prologis).
Both pay dividends: Iron Mountain yields 3.0% and Prologis 3.3%.
Prologis scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 5 for Iron Mountain), 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 | IRM | PLD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $34.7B | $119B |
| Share price | $116.55 | $127.98 |
| Change, 1 year | 15.0% | 3.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 145% | −12.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.04 | 1.06 |
| Employees | 12K | 2,802 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 83.3× | 28.5× (better) |
| P/S | 4.6× (better) | 13.0× |
| P/B | – | 2.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.8× | 15.7× (better) |
| FCF yield | −1.4% | – |
| Fair value | $66.73 | $112.97 |
| Margin of safety | −74.6% | −13.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.4% (better) | 7.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.7% | 14.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 22.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 900% (better) | 21.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −16.3% | 12.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 54.2% | – |
| Operating margin | 18.8% | 54.7% (better) |
| Net margin | – | 45.8% |
| FCF margin | −6.5% | – |
| Return on equity | – | 7.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 8.0% | 9.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | 6.84 | – |
| Interest coverage | 1.6× | 4.8× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.73 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 1.42 | 1.91 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.0% | 3.3% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 92.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | 12 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.4% | 11.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.0% | 3.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 86.4% | 94.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.83% | 0.24% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$112M | −$8.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.4% | – |
Go deeper
- IRM stock overview
- IRM income statement
- IRM valuation and score
- PLD stock overview
- PLD income statement
- PLD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.