MasTec vs Quanta Services
MTZ and PWR side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MTZ and PWR compare
Quanta Services is the larger company, worth 6.2 times as much as MasTec ($93.3B against $14.9B).
On earnings, MasTec is cheaper: it trades at 30.4× trailing earnings, against 56.2× for Quanta Services.
Quanta Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (37.1% versus 25.7% for MasTec).
Quanta Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.5% compared with 2.8% at MasTec.
Quanta Services pays a dividend yielding 0.07%; MasTec does not pay one.
Quanta Services scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 13 for MasTec), 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 | MTZ | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.9B | $93.3B |
| Share price | $186.06 | $620.73 |
| Change, 1 year | −15.9% | 38.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 98.3% | 429% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.20 | 1.12 |
| Employees | 36K | 70K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 6 | 6 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.4× (better) | 56.2× |
| P/S | 0.9× (better) | 2.5× |
| P/B | 3.7× (better) | 8.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.6× (better) | 38.5× |
| P/FCF | 36.9× | 29.6× (better) |
| PEG | 0.23 (better) | 2.08 |
| FCF yield | 2.7% | 3.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $199.80 | $392.63 |
| Margin of safety | 6.9% (better) | −58.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 25.7% | 37.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 17.7% | 20.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 46.3% | 65.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 45.7% | 63.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 3.0% | 17.2% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 12.7% | 15.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | – | 6.8% |
| Net margin | 2.8% | 4.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.3% | 8.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 13.5% | 17.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 13.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.03 | 0.66 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.06 | 1.84 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.3× |
| Current ratio | 1.39 (better) | 1.16 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.57 | 4.35 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.07% |
| Payout ratio | – | 3.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 14.3% |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.07% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 74.2% | 88.9% |
| Held by insiders | 21.7% | 0.65% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$6.3M (better) | −$138M |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.3% | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- MTZ stock overview
- MTZ income statement
- MTZ valuation and score
- PWR stock overview
- PWR income statement
- PWR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.