AMN Healthcare Services vs Everforth
AMN and EFOR side by side, both in personnel supply services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AMN and EFOR compare
AMN Healthcare Services and Everforth are about the same size, with market caps of $1.5B and $1.5B.
On earnings, AMN Healthcare Services is cheaper: it trades at 13.8× trailing earnings, against 22.1× for Everforth.
AMN Healthcare Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (29.5% versus 0.04% for Everforth).
AMN Healthcare Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.1% compared with 1.7% at Everforth.
AMN Healthcare Services scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 8 for Everforth), 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 | AMN | EFOR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.5B | $1.5B |
| Share price | $37.90 | $35.99 |
| Change, 1 year | 118% | −17.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −68.0% | −71.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.72 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 2,664 | 3,320 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 5 | 5 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.8× (better) | 22.1× |
| P/S | 0.4× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 1.9× | 0.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.8× | 4.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 4.5× (better) | 7.6× |
| FCF yield | 22.3% (better) | 13.2% |
| Fair value | $55.46 | $59.68 |
| Margin of safety | 31.7% | 39.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 29.5% (better) | 0.04% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.7% (better) | 2.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −48.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −44.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −7.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.4% (better) | 28.3% |
| Operating margin | 5.8% (better) | 4.6% |
| Net margin | 3.1% (better) | 1.7% |
| FCF margin | 9.3% (better) | 4.9% |
| Return on equity | 15.4% (better) | 3.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 9.8% (better) | 6.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.96 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.45 | – |
| Interest coverage | 6.1× (better) | 2.4× |
| Current ratio | 1.21 | 2.13 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.29 (better) | 2.09 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | – | 7.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 7.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 120% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 0.87% | 3.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$114K | $1.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.1% | 8.5% |
Go deeper
- AMN stock overview
- AMN income statement
- AMN valuation and score
- EFOR stock overview
- EFOR income statement
- EFOR valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.