NetApp vs Everpure
NTAP and P side by side, both in computer and office equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How NTAP and P compare
NetApp and Everpure are about the same size, with market caps of $39.1B and $42.3B.
On earnings, NetApp is cheaper: it trades at 28.1× trailing earnings, against 174× for Everpure.
Everpure grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (27.2% versus 12.7% for NetApp).
NetApp keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.8% compared with 5.9% at Everpure.
NetApp pays a dividend yielding 1.0%; Everpure does not pay one.
NetApp scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 15 for Everpure), 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 | NTAP | P |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $39.1B | $42.3B |
| Share price | $199.18 | $126.98 |
| Change, 1 year | 74.5% | 30.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 119% | 358% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.18 | 1.57 |
| Employees | 12K | 6,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 15 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 4 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 28.1× (better) | 174× |
| P/S | 6.0× (better) | 9.9× |
| P/B | 26.2× (better) | 27.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.9× (better) | 111× |
| P/FCF | 23.7× (better) | 330× |
| PEG | 8.98 | 5.16 (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.2% (better) | 0.30% |
| Fair value | $157.07 | $31.99 |
| Margin of safety | −26.8% (better) | −297% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.7% | 27.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.7% | 16.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 21.1% | 82.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 25.4% | 78.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 80.3% (better) | 69.7% |
| Operating margin | 28.5% (better) | 5.3% |
| Net margin | 21.8% (better) | 5.9% |
| FCF margin | 25.4% (better) | 3.0% |
| Return on equity | 115% (better) | 17.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 528% (better) | 25.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.66 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.54 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 214× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 | 1.51 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.78 | 7.83 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.0% | – |
| Payout ratio | 29.0% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 1.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.2% (better) | 0.79% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.2% (better) | 0.79% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.0% | 83.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.48% | 3.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$31.3M (better) | −$284M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.5% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- NTAP stock overview
- NTAP income statement
- NTAP valuation and score
- P stock overview
- P income statement
- P valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.