Parsons vs Science Applications International
PSN and SAIC side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PSN and SAIC compare
Science Applications International is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Parsons ($6.3B against $5.2B).
Science Applications International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−0.78% versus −2.7% for Parsons).
Science Applications International pays a dividend yielding 0.99%; Parsons does not pay one.
Science Applications International scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 10 for Parsons), 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 | PSN | SAIC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.2B | $6.3B |
| Share price | $49.72 | $150.24 |
| Change, 1 year | −42.5% | 66.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 40.1% | 73.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.76 | 0.47 |
| Employees | 400 | 23K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.3× | – |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 0.9× |
| P/B | 2.0× (better) | 4.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.5× | 13.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 12.8× | 10.2× (better) |
| PEG | 1.00 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.8% | 9.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $49.18 | $161.23 |
| Margin of safety | −1.1% | 6.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.7% | −0.78% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.2% (better) | 0.58% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −38.5% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −37.2% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 17.8% (better) | 16.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 22.2% (better) | 12.6% |
| Operating margin | 4.8% | 8.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.3% | – |
| FCF margin | 6.5% | 8.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.7% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 6.7% | 13.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.51 (better) | 1.73 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.39 (better) | 3.74 |
| Interest coverage | 5.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.59 (better) | 1.20 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.57 | 3.09 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.99% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 3.1% | 7.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.1% | 8.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 86.6% |
| Held by insiders | 1.5% | 1.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $3.1M (better) | $479K |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.3% | 5.0% |
Go deeper
- PSN stock overview
- PSN income statement
- PSN valuation and score
- SAIC stock overview
- SAIC income statement
- SAIC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.