Kyndryl vs Leidos
KD and LDOS side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KD and LDOS compare
Leidos is the larger company, worth 6.0 times as much as Kyndryl ($17.9B against $3.0B).
Leidos grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.4% versus −0.62% for Kyndryl).
Leidos pays a dividend yielding 1.2%; Kyndryl does not pay one.
Leidos scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 2 for Kyndryl), 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 | KD | LDOS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.0B | $17.9B |
| Share price | $13.83 | $142.98 |
| Change, 1 year | −51.3% | −24.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −43.0% | 51.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.46 | 0.75 |
| Employees | 72K | 47K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 2 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 13.4× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 1.0× |
| P/B | 2.8× (better) | 3.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 10.0× |
| P/FCF | 20.4× | 8.3× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.43 |
| FCF yield | 4.9% | 12.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $9.68 | $217.52 |
| Margin of safety | −42.9% | 34.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.62% | 3.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −5.7% | 6.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −1.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 1.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 20.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.8% (better) | 17.8% |
| Operating margin | – | 11.5% |
| Net margin | – | 7.8% |
| FCF margin | 0.99% | 12.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 27.7% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 16.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 5.33 | 1.14 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.27 |
| Current ratio | 0.85 | 1.63 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.10 | 3.23 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 1.2% (better) |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 7 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 3.7% |
| Buyback yield | 10.2% (better) | 3.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 10.2% (better) | 4.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.0% | 79.6% |
| Held by insiders | 3.0% | 0.85% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$177K (better) | −$3.2M |
| Short interest, % of float | 16.2% | 3.8% |
Go deeper
- KD stock overview
- KD income statement
- KD valuation and score
- LDOS stock overview
- LDOS income statement
- LDOS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.