Sanmina vs Vertiv
SANM and VRT 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 VRT compare
Vertiv is the larger company, worth 10 times as much as Sanmina ($89.5B against $8.9B).
On earnings, Sanmina is cheaper: it trades at 29.6× trailing earnings, against 52.6× for Vertiv.
Sanmina grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (58.6% versus 26.2% for Vertiv).
Vertiv keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.1% compared with 2.4% at Sanmina.
Vertiv pays a dividend yielding 0.11%; Sanmina does not pay one.
Vertiv scores higher on the StockData Score (19 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 | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.9B | $89.5B |
| Share price | $165.57 | $232.50 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.9% | 16.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 283% | 741% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.24 | 2.15 |
| Employees | 39K | 34K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 4 | 4 |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 29.6× (better) | 52.6× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 7.8× |
| P/B | – | 18.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.2× (better) | 35.0× |
| P/FCF | 14.9× (better) | 30.6× |
| PEG | 5.49 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.7% (better) | 3.3% |
| Fair value | $164.35 | $196.85 |
| Margin of safety | −0.74% (better) | −18.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 58.6% (better) | 26.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.2% | 18.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 18.9% | 113% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 19.7% | 111% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 18.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 9.0% | 38.0% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 18.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.4% | 15.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.7% | 25.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 43.9% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 38.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.62 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.47 | 0.05 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 5.6× | 41.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.78 (better) | 1.38 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.68 | 6.36 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.11% |
| Payout ratio | – | 5.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.11% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.8% | 81.9% |
| Held by insiders | 3.4% | 1.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$42.9M (better) | −$128M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 3.8% |
Go deeper
- SANM stock overview
- SANM income statement
- SANM valuation and score
- VRT stock overview
- VRT income statement
- VRT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.