Laureate Education vs Lincoln Educational Services
LAUR and LINC side by side, both in services-educational services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LAUR and LINC compare
Laureate Education is the larger company, worth 7.0 times as much as Lincoln Educational Services ($4.6B against $656M).
Lincoln Educational Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.0% versus 20.9% for Laureate Education).
Laureate Education keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.3% compared with 4.0% at Lincoln Educational Services.
Laureate Education scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 12 for Lincoln Educational Services), 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 | LAUR | LINC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.6B | $656M |
| Share price | $33.22 | $20.68 |
| Change, 1 year | 15.0% | −1.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 181% | 192% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.54 | 1.03 |
| Employees | 34K | 2,590 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 5 | 5 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.2× | – |
| P/S | 2.4× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 3.9× | 3.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.3× (better) | 10.7× |
| P/FCF | 15.9× (better) | 26.7× |
| PEG | 0.18 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.3% (better) | 3.7% |
| Fair value | $35.63 | $13.78 |
| Margin of safety | 6.8% (better) | −50.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 20.9% | 22.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.7% | 12.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 90.6% (better) | 59.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 99.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −15.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.6% | 59.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 25.8% (better) | 5.9% |
| Net margin | 20.3% (better) | 4.0% |
| FCF margin | 15.0% (better) | 4.3% |
| Return on equity | 34.1% (better) | 11.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% (better) | 14.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.17 | 0.13 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.03 (better) | −0.30 |
| Interest coverage | 33.7× (better) | 8.9× |
| Current ratio | 0.71 | 0.96 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.69 (better) | 2.76 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 8.8% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 8.8% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.1% | 94.7% |
| Held by insiders | 26.7% | 20.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$23.9M (better) | −$31.8M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.9% | 10.5% |
Go deeper
- LAUR stock overview
- LAUR income statement
- LAUR valuation and score
- LINC stock overview
- LINC income statement
- LINC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.