Roper Technologies vs Trimble
ROP and TRMB side by side, both in laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ROP and TRMB compare
Roper Technologies is the larger company, worth 3.0 times as much as Trimble ($46.1B against $15.1B).
Roper Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.9% versus 5.8% for Trimble).
Roper Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 30.2% compared with −2.8% at Trimble.
Roper Technologies pays a dividend yielding 0.78%; Trimble does not pay one.
Roper Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 12 for Trimble), 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 | ROP | TRMB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $46.1B | $15.1B |
| Share price | $466.60 | $64.94 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.6% | −18.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −3.7% | −24.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.75 | 1.33 |
| Employees | 19K | 12K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.3× | – |
| P/S | 5.6× | 4.0× (better) |
| P/B | 2.5× (better) | 3.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 24.7× | 19.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 19.6× |
| FCF yield | – | 5.1% |
| Fair value | $627.18 | $83.81 |
| Margin of safety | 25.6% (better) | 22.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.9% (better) | 5.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.5% (better) | 2.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 62.7% (better) | −137% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 69.6% (better) | −142% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.6% (better) | 2.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 69.5% | 69.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 28.0% (better) | 17.0% |
| Net margin | 30.2% (better) | −2.8% |
| FCF margin | – | 20.4% |
| Return on equity | 13.1% (better) | −1.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 6.7% | 7.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.61 | 0.29 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.73 | 1.47 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 5.9× | 8.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.55 | 0.95 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.83 | 3.77 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.78% | – |
| Payout ratio | 14.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 14 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 3.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.78% | 3.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 100% |
| Held by insiders | 0.37% | 0.41% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$13.5M | −$5.3M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.6% | 4.3% |
Go deeper
- ROP stock overview
- ROP income statement
- ROP valuation and score
- TRMB stock overview
- TRMB income statement
- TRMB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.