Motorola Solutions vs Qualcomm
MSI and QCOM side by side, both in communications equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MSI and QCOM compare
Qualcomm is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Motorola Solutions ($173B against $81.3B).
On earnings, Qualcomm is cheaper: it trades at 19.1× trailing earnings, against 38.7× for Motorola Solutions.
Motorola Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.3% versus 1.9% for Qualcomm).
Qualcomm keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.0% compared with 17.4% at Motorola Solutions.
Both pay dividends: Motorola Solutions yields 0.98% and Qualcomm 2.2%.
Motorola Solutions scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 10 for Qualcomm), 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 | MSI | QCOM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $81.3B | $173B |
| Share price | $491.53 | $164.79 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.7% | −7.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 98.6% | 1.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.74 | 1.52 |
| Employees | 23K | 52K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 38.7× | 19.1× (better) |
| P/S | 6.6× | 3.9× (better) |
| P/B | 30.4× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 24.9× | 14.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 30.4× | 16.6× (better) |
| PEG | 2.26 | – |
| FCF yield | 3.3% | 6.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $397.10 | $192.49 |
| Margin of safety | −23.8% | 14.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.3% (better) | 1.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.5% | 13.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.85% (better) | −20.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 2.2% (better) | −16.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 18.5% (better) | 2.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 52.0% | 54.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 24.9% (better) | 23.2% |
| Net margin | 17.4% | 21.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 21.9% | 23.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 92.0% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 27.0% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.38 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.31 (better) | −0.49 |
| Interest coverage | 6.9× | 14.8× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.10 | 2.02 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.33 | 5.76 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.98% | 2.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 35.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 15 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 11.2% (better) | 6.5% |
| Buyback yield | 1.3% | 5.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% | 7.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.0% | 80.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.37% | 0.08% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$101M | −$20.8M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.0% | 3.4% |
Go deeper
- MSI stock overview
- MSI income statement
- MSI valuation and score
- QCOM stock overview
- QCOM income statement
- QCOM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.