Littelfuse vs TTM Technologies
LFUS and TTMI side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LFUS and TTMI compare
Littelfuse and TTM Technologies are about the same size, with market caps of $10.0B and $8.7B.
TTM Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (27.6% versus 15.4% for Littelfuse).
TTM Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.0% compared with −0.31% at Littelfuse.
Littelfuse pays a dividend yielding 0.78%; TTM Technologies does not pay one.
TTM Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 11 for Littelfuse), 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 | TTMI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.0B | $8.7B |
| Share price | $393.08 | $82.94 |
| Change, 1 year | 55.7% | 30.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 22.9% | 480% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.31 | 1.66 |
| Employees | 17K | 18K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 37.4× |
| P/S | 3.8× | 2.6× (better) |
| P/B | 3.8× (better) | 4.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 105× | 27.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 22.5× | – |
| PEG | – | 1.65 |
| FCF yield | 4.5% (better) | −0.17% |
| Fair value | $119.04 | $69.83 |
| Margin of safety | −230% | −18.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 15.4% | 27.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.5% (better) | 6.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −108% | 154% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −117% | 147% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 0.12% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 39.3% (better) | 21.2% |
| Operating margin | 3.7% | 9.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −0.31% | 7.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 17.0% (better) | −0.45% |
| Return on equity | −0.31% | 13.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 1.8% | 13.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.24 (better) | 0.50 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.01 (better) | 1.39 |
| Interest coverage | 3.2× | 7.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.76 (better) | 1.78 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.96 (better) | 3.76 |
| 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% | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.78% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.7% | 92.6% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 2.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$36.1M | −$34.8M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.3% | 4.0% |
Go deeper
- LFUS stock overview
- LFUS income statement
- LFUS valuation and score
- TTMI stock overview
- TTMI income statement
- TTMI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.