T-Mobile US vs Verizon Communications
TMUS and VZ side by side, both in telephone communications. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How TMUS and VZ compare
T-Mobile US and Verizon Communications are about the same size, with market caps of $168B and $186B.
On earnings, Verizon Communications is cheaper: it trades at 11.4× trailing earnings, against 16.4× for T-Mobile US.
T-Mobile US grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.7% versus 1.4% for Verizon Communications).
Verizon Communications keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.8% compared with 11.5% at T-Mobile US.
Both pay dividends: T-Mobile US yields 2.6% and Verizon Communications 6.3%.
T-Mobile US scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 11 for Verizon Communications), 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 | TMUS | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $168B | $186B |
| Share price | $156.44 | $44.73 |
| Change, 1 year | −27.2% | 11.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 27.5% | −14.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.51 | 0.25 |
| Employees | 75K | 90K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.4× | 11.4× (better) |
| P/S | 1.8× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 3.0× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.2× (better) | 7.2× |
| P/FCF | 9.1× | – |
| PEG | 0.24 | – |
| FCF yield | 11.0% | – |
| Fair value | $195.44 | $56.58 |
| Margin of safety | 20.0% | 20.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.7% (better) | 1.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.2% (better) | 1.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −13.5% (better) | −17.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −9.8% (better) | −16.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 29.7% (better) | −1.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 19.8% | 20.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 11.5% | 11.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 20.0% | – |
| Return on equity | 18.0% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 23.9% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.11 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.10 (better) | 3.33 |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.8× |
| Current ratio | 0.92 (better) | 0.63 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.51 (better) | 1.19 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.6% | 6.3% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 41.1% | 71.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 1.9% |
| Buyback yield | 7.2% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 9.8% (better) | 6.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 43.6% | 69.1% |
| Held by insiders | – | 0.03% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$161M | −$15.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- TMUS stock overview
- TMUS income statement
- TMUS valuation and score
- VZ stock overview
- VZ income statement
- VZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.