PAMT vs Universal Logistics
PAMT and ULH side by side, both in trucking and courier services, except air. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PAMT and ULH compare
Universal Logistics is the larger company, worth 2.6 times as much as PAMT ($770M against $300M).
PAMT grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−2.1% versus −6.8% for Universal Logistics).
Universal Logistics keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.9% compared with −7.3% at PAMT.
Universal Logistics pays a dividend yielding 1.4%; PAMT does not pay one.
Universal Logistics scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 5 for PAMT), 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 | PAMT | ULH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $300M | $770M |
| Share price | $14.32 | $29.20 |
| Change, 1 year | 38.1% | 89.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −57.7% | 45.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 1.12 |
| Employees | 2,365 | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 17.3× |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 0.5× |
| P/B | 1.5× | 1.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 6.0× |
| P/FCF | – | 10.6× |
| FCF yield | −21.5% | 9.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $18.25 | $39.90 |
| Margin of safety | 21.5% | 26.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.1% (better) | −6.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.2% (better) | 2.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | −8.8% | 6.6% (better) |
| Net margin | −7.3% | 2.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | −10.6% | 4.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | −20.6% | 8.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −9.0% | 5.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.66 | 1.18 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.76 |
| Interest coverage | −2.8× | 2.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.28 (better) | 1.25 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.53 | 2.03 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.4% |
| Payout ratio | – | 24.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 32.0% |
| Buyback yield | 0.07% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.07% | 1.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 19.1% | 28.0% |
| Held by insiders | 78.2% | 74.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $0 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.6% | 4.5% |
Go deeper
- PAMT stock overview
- PAMT income statement
- PAMT valuation and score
- ULH stock overview
- ULH income statement
- ULH valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.