AMN Healthcare Services vs Kforce
AMN and KFRC 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 KFRC compare
AMN Healthcare Services is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Kforce ($1.5B against $987M).
On earnings, AMN Healthcare Services is cheaper: it trades at 13.8× trailing earnings, against 23.1× for Kforce.
AMN Healthcare Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (29.5% versus 2.1% for Kforce).
AMN Healthcare Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.1% compared with 3.0% at Kforce.
Kforce pays a dividend yielding 2.9%; AMN Healthcare Services does not pay one.
Kforce scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 14 for AMN Healthcare Services), 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 | KFRC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.5B | $987M |
| Share price | $37.90 | $55.09 |
| Change, 1 year | 118% | 83.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −68.0% | −30.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.72 | 0.74 |
| Employees | 2,664 | 1,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.8× (better) | 23.1× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 0.7× |
| P/B | 1.9× (better) | 7.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.8× (better) | 14.7× |
| P/FCF | 4.5× (better) | 114× |
| FCF yield | 22.3% (better) | 0.88% |
| Fair value | $55.46 | $45.92 |
| Margin of safety | 31.7% (better) | −20.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 29.5% (better) | 2.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.7% (better) | −1.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 0.33% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 5.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −5.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.4% (better) | 27.8% |
| Operating margin | 5.8% (better) | 4.5% |
| Net margin | 3.1% (better) | 3.0% |
| FCF margin | 9.3% (better) | 0.63% |
| Return on equity | 15.4% | 30.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 9.8% | 32.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.96 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.45 | – |
| Interest coverage | 6.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.21 | 1.95 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.29 | 7.85 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.9% |
| Payout ratio | – | 65.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 14.3% |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 5.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 120% | 95.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.87% | 7.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$114K (better) | −$578K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.1% | 8.7% |
Go deeper
- AMN stock overview
- AMN income statement
- AMN valuation and score
- KFRC stock overview
- KFRC income statement
- KFRC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.