Mettler Toledo International vs Trimble
MTD and TRMB side by side, both in laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MTD and TRMB compare
Mettler Toledo International is the larger company, worth 2.2 times as much as Trimble ($33.6B against $15.1B).
Mettler Toledo International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.9% versus 5.8% for Trimble).
Mettler Toledo International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.9% compared with −2.8% at Trimble.
Trimble scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 10 for Mettler Toledo International), 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 | MTD | TRMB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $33.6B | $15.1B |
| Share price | $1674.81 | $64.94 |
| Change, 1 year | 20.1% | −18.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 10.3% | −24.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.16 | 1.33 |
| Employees | 17K | 12K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 37.7× | – |
| P/S | 8.1× | 4.0× (better) |
| P/B | 2617× | 3.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 19.4× |
| P/FCF | 38.8× | 19.6× (better) |
| PEG | 12.30 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.6% | 5.1% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $83.81 |
| Margin of safety | – | 22.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.9% (better) | 5.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.5% (better) | 2.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 9.1% (better) | −137% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 12.5% (better) | −142% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 11.0% (better) | 2.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.3% | 69.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | – | 17.0% |
| Net margin | 21.9% (better) | −2.8% |
| FCF margin | 20.9% (better) | 20.4% |
| Return on equity | – | −1.9% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 7.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 164.70 | 0.29 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.47 |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.12 (better) | 0.95 |
| Altman Z-score | 10.35 (better) | 3.77 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 2.3% | 3.5% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% | 3.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 100% |
| Held by insiders | 0.37% | 0.41% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$35.9M | −$5.3M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 4.3% |
Go deeper
- MTD stock overview
- MTD income statement
- MTD valuation and score
- TRMB stock overview
- TRMB income statement
- TRMB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.