Amphastar Pharmaceuticals vs Emergent BioSolutions
AMPH and EBS side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AMPH and EBS compare
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals is the larger company, worth 3.9 times as much as Emergent BioSolutions ($1.2B against $310M).
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.1% versus −17.7% for Emergent BioSolutions).
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.3% compared with −40.2% at Emergent BioSolutions.
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 7 for Emergent BioSolutions), 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 | AMPH | EBS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.2B | $310M |
| Share price | $28.60 | $6.04 |
| Change, 1 year | 9.5% | −45.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 39.4% | −84.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.57 | 1.85 |
| Employees | 163 | 900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.0× | – |
| P/S | 1.6× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 1.5× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.4× | – |
| P/FCF | 8.8× | 1.6× (better) |
| PEG | 2.47 | – |
| FCF yield | 11.4% | 60.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $42.54 | $21.23 |
| Margin of safety | 32.8% | 71.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.1% (better) | −17.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.5% (better) | −14.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −11.3% (better) | −443% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −2.7% (better) | −486% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 132% (better) | −30.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 46.8% | 48.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 18.7% (better) | −27.7% |
| Net margin | 13.3% (better) | −40.2% |
| FCF margin | 18.6% | 29.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 12.4% (better) | −58.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 9.3% (better) | −17.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.75 (better) | 1.62 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.74 | – |
| Interest coverage | 5.3× (better) | −4.0× |
| Current ratio | 3.32 | 4.58 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.42 (better) | 0.34 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 7.9% | 8.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.9% | 8.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 66.6% | 87.1% |
| Held by insiders | 38.7% | 6.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.9M | −$986K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 16.3% | 20.9% |
Go deeper
- AMPH stock overview
- AMPH income statement
- AMPH valuation and score
- EBS stock overview
- EBS income statement
- EBS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.