NetApp vs Sandisk
NTAP and SNDK 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 SNDK compare
Sandisk is the larger company, worth 4.3 times as much as NetApp ($169B against $39.1B).
On earnings, Sandisk is cheaper: it trades at 9.2× trailing earnings, against 28.1× for NetApp.
Sandisk grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (272% versus 12.7% for NetApp).
Sandisk keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 67.0% compared with 21.8% at NetApp.
NetApp pays a dividend yielding 1.0%; Sandisk does not pay one.
NetApp scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 17 for Sandisk), 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 | SNDK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $39.1B | $169B |
| Share price | $199.18 | $1150.89 |
| Change, 1 year | 74.5% | 463% |
| Change, 5 years | 119% | 2192% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.18 | 2.60 |
| Employees | 12K | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 17 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (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× | 9.2× (better) |
| P/S | 6.0× | 5.8× (better) |
| P/B | 26.2× | 9.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.9× | 7.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 23.7× | 9.7× (better) |
| PEG | 8.98 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.2% | 10.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $157.07 | $3286.19 |
| Margin of safety | −26.8% | 65.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.7% | 272% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.7% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 21.1% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 25.4% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 80.3% (better) | 80.0% |
| Operating margin | 28.5% | 72.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 21.8% | 67.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 25.4% | 59.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 115% | 141% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 528% (better) | 165% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.66 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.54 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 600× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 | 2.58 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.78 | 18.41 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| 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% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.2% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.0% | 75.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.48% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$31.3M (better) | −$133M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.5% | 3.3% |
Go deeper
- NTAP stock overview
- NTAP income statement
- NTAP valuation and score
- SNDK stock overview
- SNDK income statement
- SNDK valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.