Phibro Animal Health vs Zoetis
PAHC and ZTS side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PAHC and ZTS compare
Zoetis is the larger company, worth 21 times as much as Phibro Animal Health ($32.9B against $1.6B).
On earnings, Zoetis is cheaper: it trades at 13.1× trailing earnings, against 16.0× for Phibro Animal Health.
Phibro Animal Health grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.1% versus 1.5% for Zoetis).
Zoetis keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 27.5% compared with 6.6% at Phibro Animal Health.
Both pay dividends: Phibro Animal Health yields 1.2% and Zoetis 2.6%.
Phibro Animal Health scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 17 for Zoetis), 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 | PAHC | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.6B | $32.9B |
| Share price | $38.88 | $79.72 |
| Change, 1 year | −5.6% | −44.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 73.8% | −63.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.73 | 0.78 |
| Employees | 2,605 | 15K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 17 |
| Valuation score | 5 | 5 |
| Growth score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.0× | 13.1× (better) |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | 4.1× (better) | 10.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.1× (better) | 10.1× |
| P/FCF | 160× | 14.2× (better) |
| PEG | 0.36 (better) | 1.28 |
| FCF yield | 0.62% | 7.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $64.80 | $152.11 |
| Margin of safety | 40.0% | 47.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.1% (better) | 1.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.7% (better) | 7.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 107% (better) | 0.96% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 104% (better) | 5.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 12.6% (better) | 12.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.8% | 71.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 12.8% | – |
| Net margin | 6.6% | 27.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 0.65% | 24.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 29.7% | 64.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 24.7% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 2.87 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.85 |
| Interest coverage | 4.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.96 | 3.08 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.11 | 3.99 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | 2.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 19.5% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 13 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 19.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 11.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 13.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 51.8% | 96.1% |
| Held by insiders | 98.9% | 0.08% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$27.8M | −$1.7M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 234% | 4.5% |
Go deeper
- PAHC stock overview
- PAHC income statement
- PAHC valuation and score
- ZTS stock overview
- ZTS income statement
- ZTS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.