StandardAero vs TransDigm
SARO and TDG side by side, both in aircraft and parts. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SARO and TDG compare
TransDigm is the larger company, worth 8.2 times as much as StandardAero ($63.4B against $7.7B).
On earnings, StandardAero is cheaper: it trades at 24.1× trailing earnings, against 32.1× for TransDigm.
TransDigm grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.6% versus 12.6% for StandardAero).
TransDigm keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.3% compared with 5.1% at StandardAero.
TransDigm scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 10 for StandardAero), 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 | SARO | TDG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.7B | $63.4B |
| Share price | $23.38 | $1146.81 |
| Change, 1 year | −18.3% | −12.9% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 72.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.23 | 1.03 |
| Employees | 8,000 | 17K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 4 |
| Growth score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.1× (better) | 32.1× |
| P/S | 1.2× (better) | 6.3× |
| P/B | 2.8× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.5× (better) | 18.6× |
| P/FCF | 35.4× | 32.9× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.95 |
| FCF yield | 2.8% | 3.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $33.10 | $1439.70 |
| Margin of safety | 29.4% (better) | 20.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.6% | 16.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 11.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 144% (better) | 10.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 137% (better) | 10.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 29.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 15.0% | 59.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 9.5% | 46.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.1% | 21.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.5% | 19.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 12.3% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 9.3% | 19.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.84 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.72 (better) | 5.97 |
| Interest coverage | 3.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.13 | 3.02 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.40 (better) | 1.74 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.00% |
| Payout ratio | – | 249% |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 2.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 109% | 95.1% |
| Held by insiders | – | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.5B | −$484M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 2.2% |
Go deeper
- SARO stock overview
- SARO income statement
- SARO valuation and score
- TDG stock overview
- TDG income statement
- TDG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.