Sanmina vs TTM Technologies
SANM and TTMI side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SANM and TTMI compare
Sanmina and TTM Technologies are about the same size, with market caps of $8.9B and $8.7B.
On earnings, Sanmina is cheaper: it trades at 29.6× trailing earnings, against 37.4× for TTM Technologies.
Sanmina grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (58.6% versus 27.6% for TTM Technologies).
TTM Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.0% compared with 2.4% at Sanmina.
TTM Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 10 for Sanmina), 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 | SANM | TTMI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.9B | $8.7B |
| Share price | $165.57 | $82.94 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.9% | 30.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 283% | 480% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.24 | 1.66 |
| Employees | 39K | 18K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 | 4 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 29.6× (better) | 37.4× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 2.6× |
| P/B | – | 4.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.2× (better) | 27.5× |
| P/FCF | 14.9× | – |
| PEG | 5.49 | 1.65 (better) |
| FCF yield | 6.7% (better) | −0.17% |
| Fair value | $164.35 | $69.83 |
| Margin of safety | −0.74% (better) | −18.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 58.6% (better) | 27.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.2% | 6.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 18.9% | 154% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 19.7% | 147% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 18.9% (better) | 0.12% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 9.0% | 21.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 9.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.4% | 7.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.7% (better) | −0.45% |
| Return on equity | – | 13.3% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 13.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.50 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.47 (better) | 1.39 |
| Interest coverage | 5.6× | 7.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.78 (better) | 1.78 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.68 | 3.76 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | – | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.8% | 92.6% |
| Held by insiders | 3.4% | 2.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$42.9M | −$34.8M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 4.0% |
Go deeper
- SANM stock overview
- SANM income statement
- SANM valuation and score
- TTMI stock overview
- TTMI income statement
- TTMI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.