Strawberry Fields REIT vs Universal Health Realty Income Trust
STRW and UHT side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How STRW and UHT compare
Universal Health Realty Income Trust is the larger company, worth 3.1 times as much as Strawberry Fields REIT ($542M against $178M).
On earnings, Universal Health Realty Income Trust is cheaper: it trades at 26.9× trailing earnings, against 57.0× for Strawberry Fields REIT.
Strawberry Fields REIT grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.1% versus −0.02% for Universal Health Realty Income Trust).
Universal Health Realty Income Trust keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.3% compared with 1.8% at Strawberry Fields REIT.
Both pay dividends: Strawberry Fields REIT yields 5.3% and Universal Health Realty Income Trust 7.7%.
Universal Health Realty Income Trust scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 10 for Strawberry Fields REIT), 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 | STRW | UHT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $178M | $542M |
| Share price | $12.55 | $39.03 |
| Change, 1 year | 6.1% | −0.05% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −32.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.06 | 0.56 |
| Employees | 9 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 57.0× | 26.9× (better) |
| P/S | 1.1× (better) | 5.5× |
| P/B | 14.8× | 3.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 1.5× (better) | 8.4× |
| PEG | 2.32 | – |
| Fair value | $60.06 | $40.34 |
| Margin of safety | 79.1% (better) | 3.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.1% (better) | −0.02% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 4.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −59.8% | 12.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −64.5% | 12.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −2.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 55.0% (better) | 35.9% |
| Net margin | 1.8% | 20.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 21.5% (better) | 13.5% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 19.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 1.7× | – |
| Altman Z-score | 0.66 | 3.28 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.3% | 7.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 206% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 15 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 1.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.3% | 7.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 29.4% | 62.0% |
| Held by insiders | 43.0% | 2.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $60.0K (better) | $0 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.5% | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- STRW stock overview
- STRW income statement
- STRW valuation and score
- UHT stock overview
- UHT income statement
- UHT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.