United Parcel Service vs ZTO Express (Cayman)
UPS and ZTO side by side, both in trucking and courier services, except air. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How UPS and ZTO compare
ZTO Express (Cayman) grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.9% versus −0.42% for United Parcel Service).
ZTO Express (Cayman) keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.5% compared with 5.1% at United Parcel Service.
United Parcel Service pays a dividend yielding 6.1%; ZTO Express (Cayman) does not pay one.
United Parcel Service scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 11 for ZTO Express (Cayman)), 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 | UPS | ZTO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $92.1B | – |
| Share price | $108.25 | $20.15 |
| Change, 1 year | 11.1% | 5.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −48.0% | −27.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.88 | 0.53 |
| Employees | 10K | 23K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.1× | – |
| P/S | 1.0× | – |
| P/B | 6.1× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.8× | – |
| P/FCF | 16.9× | – |
| FCF yield | 5.9% | – |
| Fair value | $119.04 | – |
| Margin of safety | 9.1% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.42% | 10.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.94% | 14.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −20.2% | 3.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −19.9% | 4.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 33.6% (better) | 15.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 25.0% |
| Operating margin | 7.3% | 21.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.1% | 18.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 6.1% | 13.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | 29.7% (better) | 14.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 14.8% | 17.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.63 | 0.16 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.09 (better) | −1.06 |
| Interest coverage | 6.0× | 42.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.18 | 1.49 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.96 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 6.1% | – |
| Payout ratio | 118% | 41.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 | – |
| Buyback yield | −0.13% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.9% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 62.8% | 3.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.06% | 18.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.7M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | – |
Go deeper
- UPS stock overview
- UPS income statement
- UPS valuation and score
- ZTO stock overview
- ZTO income statement
- ZTO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.