Otis Worldwide vs Vertiv
OTIS and VRT side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How OTIS and VRT compare
Vertiv is the larger company, worth 3.1 times as much as Otis Worldwide ($89.5B against $28.8B).
On earnings, Otis Worldwide is cheaper: it trades at 18.8× trailing earnings, against 52.6× for Vertiv.
Vertiv grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (26.2% versus 5.8% for Otis Worldwide).
Vertiv keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.1% compared with 10.3% at Otis Worldwide.
Both pay dividends: Otis Worldwide yields 2.3% and Vertiv 0.11%.
Vertiv scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 17 for Otis Worldwide), 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 | OTIS | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $28.8B | $89.5B |
| Share price | $75.75 | $232.50 |
| Change, 1 year | −18.9% | 16.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −7.3% | 741% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.75 | 2.15 |
| Employees | 72K | 34K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.8× (better) | 52.6× |
| P/S | 1.9× (better) | 7.8× |
| P/B | – | 18.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.6× (better) | 35.0× |
| P/FCF | 17.2× (better) | 30.6× |
| PEG | 3.28 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.8% (better) | 3.3% |
| Fair value | $104.71 | $196.85 |
| Margin of safety | 27.7% (better) | −18.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.8% | 26.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% | 18.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 15.5% | 113% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 18.6% | 111% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 11.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 38.0% |
| Operating margin | 15.3% | 18.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 10.3% | 15.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.1% | 25.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 43.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 93.6% (better) | 38.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.62 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.97 | 0.05 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 9.6× | 41.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.86 | 1.38 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.96 | 6.36 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.11% |
| Payout ratio | 42.5% | 5.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 22.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.8% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.1% (better) | 0.11% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.8% | 81.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.14% | 1.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$17.2M (better) | −$128M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.5% | 3.8% |
Go deeper
- OTIS stock overview
- OTIS income statement
- OTIS valuation and score
- VRT stock overview
- VRT income statement
- VRT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.