Laureate Education vs Perdoceo Education
LAUR and PRDO 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 PRDO compare
Laureate Education is the larger company, worth 2.7 times as much as Perdoceo Education ($4.8B against $1.8B).
On earnings, Perdoceo Education is cheaper: it trades at 10.2× trailing earnings, against 13.0× for Laureate Education.
Laureate Education grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.9% versus 6.4% for Perdoceo Education).
Perdoceo Education keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.1% compared with 20.3% at Laureate Education.
Perdoceo Education pays a dividend yielding 2.1%; Laureate Education does not pay one.
Perdoceo Education scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 16 for Laureate Education), 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 | PRDO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.8B | $1.8B |
| Share price | $35.61 | $28.96 |
| Change, 1 year | 14.3% | −5.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 224% | 175% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.57 | 0.67 |
| Employees | 34K | 6,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.0× | 10.2× (better) |
| P/S | 2.5× | 2.1× (better) |
| P/B | 4.2× | 1.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.8× | 4.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.8× | – |
| PEG | 0.20 (better) | 0.50 |
| FCF yield | 5.9% | – |
| Fair value | $34.75 | $35.31 |
| Margin of safety | −2.5% | 18.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 20.9% (better) | 6.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.7% (better) | 4.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 90.6% (better) | 16.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 99.3% (better) | 21.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 6.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.6% | – |
| Operating margin | 25.8% (better) | 24.9% |
| Net margin | 20.3% | 21.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 15.0% | – |
| Return on equity | 34.1% (better) | 17.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% | 54.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.17 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.03 | – |
| Interest coverage | 33.7× | 35.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.71 | 4.54 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.81 | 6.09 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Buyback yield | 8.3% (better) | 4.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 8.3% (better) | 7.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.5% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 27.1% | 2.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$21.9M | −$16.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.2% | 8.1% |
Go deeper
- LAUR stock overview
- LAUR income statement
- LAUR valuation and score
- PRDO stock overview
- PRDO income statement
- PRDO valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.