Kimco Realty vs SBA Communications
KIM and SBAC side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KIM and SBAC compare
SBA Communications is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Kimco Realty ($20.1B against $17.0B).
On earnings, SBA Communications is cheaper: it trades at 20.4× trailing earnings, against 23.9× for Kimco Realty.
Kimco Realty grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.5% versus 2.3% for SBA Communications).
SBA Communications keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 34.5% compared with 34.1% at Kimco Realty.
Both pay dividends: Kimco Realty yields 4.1% and SBA Communications 2.6%.
SBA Communications scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 10 for Kimco Realty), 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 | KIM | SBAC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.0B | $20.1B |
| Share price | $25.55 | $189.35 |
| Change, 1 year | 24.1% | −6.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 7.0% | −45.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 0.71 |
| Employees | 710 | 1,844 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.9× | 20.4× (better) |
| P/S | 7.7× | 7.0× (better) |
| P/B | 1.7× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.1× (better) | 19.3× |
| P/FCF | – | 19.1× |
| PEG | – | 0.63 |
| FCF yield | – | 5.2% |
| Fair value | $24.75 | $219.66 |
| Margin of safety | −3.2% | 13.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.5% (better) | 2.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.1% (better) | 6.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 24.8% (better) | 15.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 28.9% (better) | 16.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 116% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 75.7% |
| Operating margin | 40.1% | 47.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 34.1% | 34.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 36.9% |
| Return on equity | 7.3% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 8.8% | 15.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 7.37 |
| Interest coverage | 2.6× | – |
| Current ratio | – | 0.20 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.31 (better) | 0.12 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.1% (better) | 2.6% |
| Payout ratio | – | 52.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 13.3% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.9% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 6.0% (better) | 2.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 100% | 98.9% |
| Held by insiders | 2.3% | 0.63% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$199K | −$54.8K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.2% | 3.2% |
Go deeper
- KIM stock overview
- KIM income statement
- KIM valuation and score
- SBAC stock overview
- SBAC income statement
- SBAC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.