Littelfuse vs Semtech
LFUS and SMTC side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LFUS and SMTC compare
Semtech is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Littelfuse ($11.9B against $10.0B).
Semtech grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.8% versus 15.4% for Littelfuse).
Semtech keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.1% compared with −0.31% at Littelfuse.
Littelfuse pays a dividend yielding 0.78%; Semtech does not pay one.
Littelfuse scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 8 for Semtech), 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 | LFUS | SMTC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.0B | $11.9B |
| Share price | $393.08 | $127.38 |
| Change, 1 year | 55.7% | 83.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 22.9% | 41.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.31 | 1.79 |
| Employees | 17K | 1,920 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 84.4× |
| P/S | 3.8× (better) | 10.1× |
| P/B | 3.8× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 105× (better) | 129× |
| P/FCF | 22.5× (better) | 61.6× |
| FCF yield | 4.5% (better) | 1.6% |
| Fair value | $119.04 | $39.82 |
| Margin of safety | −230% | −220% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 15.4% | 17.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.5% | 12.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −108% | 546% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −117% | 421% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 39.3% | 52.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 3.7% | 8.0% (better) |
| Net margin | −0.31% | 13.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 17.0% (better) | 16.4% |
| Return on equity | −0.31% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 1.8% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.24 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.01 (better) | 3.06 |
| Interest coverage | 3.2× (better) | 3.0× |
| Current ratio | 2.76 (better) | 1.70 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.96 | 8.85 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.78% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.78% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.7% | 100% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 0.51% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$36.1M | −$17.5M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.3% | 6.7% |
Go deeper
- LFUS stock overview
- LFUS income statement
- LFUS valuation and score
- SMTC stock overview
- SMTC income statement
- SMTC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.