NAPCO Security Technologies vs Turtle Beach
NSSC and TBCH side by side, both in communications equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How NSSC and TBCH compare
NAPCO Security Technologies is the larger company, worth 3.7 times as much as Turtle Beach ($1.1B against $292M).
NAPCO Security Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.7% versus −13.0% for Turtle Beach).
NAPCO Security Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.6% compared with −0.17% at Turtle Beach.
NAPCO Security Technologies pays a dividend yielding 2.0%; Turtle Beach does not pay one.
NAPCO Security Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 7 for Turtle Beach), 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 | NSSC | TBCH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.1B | $292M |
| Share price | $30.22 | $16.29 |
| Change, 1 year | −28.0% | 6.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 22.2% | −39.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.33 | 1.79 |
| Employees | 1,049 | 290 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.6× | – |
| P/S | 5.3× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 5.5× | 3.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 19.7× (better) | 27.3× |
| P/FCF | 21.6× | 7.2× (better) |
| PEG | 1.36 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.6% | 14.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $32.39 | $8.20 |
| Margin of safety | 6.7% (better) | −98.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.7% (better) | −13.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.1% (better) | −2.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −1.2% (better) | −103% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 0.00% (better) | −108% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 23.4% (better) | −20.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.7% (better) | 36.5% |
| Operating margin | 22.7% (better) | 3.2% |
| Net margin | 21.6% (better) | −0.17% |
| FCF margin | 24.7% (better) | 13.5% |
| Return on equity | 23.4% (better) | −0.53% |
| Return on invested capital | 59.8% (better) | 4.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.93 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 5.20 |
| Current ratio | 7.23 (better) | 1.94 |
| Altman Z-score | 23.31 (better) | 2.09 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% | – |
| Payout ratio | 47.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 10.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.0% | 10.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 73.9% |
| Held by insiders | 2.1% | 17.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$32.9M | −$4.0M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.5% | 24.5% |
Go deeper
- NSSC stock overview
- NSSC income statement
- NSSC valuation and score
- TBCH stock overview
- TBCH income statement
- TBCH valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.