Regal Rexnord vs Zebra Technologies
RRX and ZBRA side by side, both in general industrial machinery and equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How RRX and ZBRA compare
Zebra Technologies is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Regal Rexnord ($17.1B against $10.5B).
On earnings, Regal Rexnord is cheaper: it trades at 32.4× trailing earnings, against 33.1× for Zebra Technologies.
Zebra Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.7% versus 3.5% for Regal Rexnord).
Zebra Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.2% compared with 5.4% at Regal Rexnord.
Regal Rexnord pays a dividend yielding 0.89%; Zebra Technologies does not pay one.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | RRX | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.5B | $17.1B |
| Share price | $157.24 | $361.26 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.4% | 33.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −4.4% | −40.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.13 | 1.63 |
| Employees | 29K | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 10 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.4× (better) | 33.1× |
| P/S | 1.7× (better) | 2.9× |
| P/B | 1.5× (better) | 5.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.7× | 18.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 22.5× | 18.9× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.5% | 5.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $145.09 | $344.42 |
| Margin of safety | −8.4% | −4.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.5% | 12.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.3% (better) | 3.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 29.4% (better) | −1.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 29.0% (better) | 3.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −1.8% (better) | −2.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.8% | 49.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 11.7% | 14.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.4% | 9.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.7% | 15.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 4.8% | 15.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 5.2% | 11.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.67 (better) | 0.81 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.90 | 2.44 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.28 (better) | 0.52 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.91 | 3.62 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.89% | – |
| Payout ratio | 28.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 5.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.89% | 5.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 108% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 0.56% | 1.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$27.7M | −$2.0M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.6% | 3.5% |
Go deeper
- RRX stock overview
- RRX income statement
- RRX valuation and score
- ZBRA stock overview
- ZBRA income statement
- ZBRA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.