Mettler Toledo International vs Waters
MTD and WAT 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 WAT compare
Waters is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Mettler Toledo International ($45.5B against $33.6B).
On earnings, Mettler Toledo International is cheaper: it trades at 37.7× trailing earnings, against 115× for Waters.
Waters grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (52.5% versus 6.9% for Mettler Toledo International).
Mettler Toledo International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.9% compared with 3.6% at Waters.
Mettler Toledo International scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 for Waters), 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 | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $33.6B | $45.5B |
| Share price | $1674.81 | $462.72 |
| Change, 1 year | 20.1% | 34.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 10.3% | 34.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.16 | 0.93 |
| Employees | 17K | 7,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 37.7× (better) | 115× |
| P/S | 8.1× (better) | 9.8× |
| P/B | 2617× | 3.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 151× |
| P/FCF | 38.8× | – |
| PEG | 12.30 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.6% | – |
| Fair value | – | $87.10 |
| Margin of safety | – | −431% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.9% | 52.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.5% | 6.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 9.1% (better) | −74.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 12.5% (better) | −63.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 11.0% (better) | 5.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.3% | – |
| Operating margin | – | 7.1% |
| Net margin | 21.9% (better) | 3.6% |
| FCF margin | 20.9% | – |
| Return on equity | – | 1.9% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 2.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 164.70 | 0.32 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 13.19 |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.12 | 1.86 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 10.35 (better) | 3.76 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.03% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.03% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 0.37% | 0.10% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$35.9M | −$992K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 3.5% |
Go deeper
- MTD stock overview
- MTD income statement
- MTD valuation and score
- WAT stock overview
- WAT income statement
- WAT valuation and score
Other comparisons
- A vs MTD
- A vs WAT
- AVTR vs MTD
- AVTR vs WAT
- BIO vs MTD
- BIO vs WAT
- BRKR vs WAT
- MTD vs RVTY
- MTD vs TRMB
- VLTO vs WAT
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.