NetApp vs Western Digital
NTAP and WDC 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 WDC compare
Western Digital is the larger company, worth 3.6 times as much as NetApp ($143B against $39.1B).
On earnings, Western Digital is cheaper: it trades at 16.3× trailing earnings, against 28.1× for NetApp.
Western Digital grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (35.7% versus 12.7% for NetApp).
Western Digital keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 72.9% compared with 21.8% at NetApp.
Both pay dividends: NetApp yields 1.0% and Western Digital 0.14%.
Western Digital scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 18 for NetApp), 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 | WDC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $39.1B | $143B |
| Share price | $199.18 | $395.41 |
| Change, 1 year | 74.5% | 217% |
| Change, 5 years | 119% | 604% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.18 | 1.87 |
| Employees | 12K | 40K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 4 |
| Performance score | 6 | 6 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 28.1× | 16.3× (better) |
| P/S | 6.0× (better) | 11.0× |
| P/B | 26.2× | 16.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.9× (better) | 29.4× |
| P/FCF | 23.7× (better) | 40.6× |
| PEG | 8.98 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.2% (better) | 2.5% |
| Fair value | $157.07 | $390.43 |
| Margin of safety | −26.8% | −1.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.7% | 35.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.7% (better) | −5.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 21.1% | 399% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 25.4% | 374% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.5% | 55.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 80.3% (better) | 48.9% |
| Operating margin | 28.5% | 34.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 21.8% | 72.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 25.4% | 27.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 115% | 133% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 528% (better) | 52.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.66 | 0.12 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.54 | −0.11 |
| Interest coverage | – | 27.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 | 1.33 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.78 | 20.24 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.0% (better) | 0.14% |
| Payout ratio | 29.0% | 1.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 1.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.2% (better) | 1.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.2% (better) | 2.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.0% | 89.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.48% | 0.78% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$31.3M (better) | −$74.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.5% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- NTAP stock overview
- NTAP income statement
- NTAP valuation and score
- WDC stock overview
- WDC income statement
- WDC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.