Lincoln Educational Services vs Perdoceo Education
LINC 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 LINC and PRDO compare
Perdoceo Education is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as Lincoln Educational Services ($1.9B against $656M).
Lincoln Educational Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.0% versus 11.7% for Perdoceo Education).
Perdoceo Education keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.6% compared with 4.0% at Lincoln Educational Services.
Perdoceo Education pays a dividend yielding 2.1%; Lincoln Educational Services does not pay one.
Perdoceo Education scores higher on the StockData Score (17 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 | LINC | PRDO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $656M | $1.9B |
| Share price | $20.68 | $29.81 |
| Change, 1 year | −1.5% | −13.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 192% | 172% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.03 | 0.63 |
| Employees | 2,590 | 6,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Performance score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 10.9× |
| P/S | 1.1× (better) | 2.2× |
| P/B | 3.2× | 1.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.7× | 4.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 26.7× | – |
| PEG | – | 0.54 |
| FCF yield | 3.7% | – |
| Fair value | $13.78 | $35.70 |
| Margin of safety | −50.1% | 16.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 22.0% (better) | 11.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.1% (better) | 4.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 59.6% (better) | 14.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 18.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −15.6% | 6.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.8% | – |
| Operating margin | 5.9% | 24.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.0% | 20.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.3% | – |
| Return on equity | 11.9% | 17.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 14.7% | 51.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.13 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.30 | – |
| Interest coverage | 8.9× | 34.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.96 | 4.69 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.76 | 6.29 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 6.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.7% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 20.8% | 2.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$31.8M | −$16.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.5% | 7.0% |
Go deeper
- LINC stock overview
- LINC income statement
- LINC 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.