Amentum vs Maximus
AMTM and MMS side by side, both in miscellaneous business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AMTM and MMS compare
Amentum is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Maximus ($5.4B against $3.4B).
On earnings, Maximus is cheaper: it trades at 9.6× trailing earnings, against 26.4× for Amentum.
Amentum grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.4% versus −3.3% for Maximus).
Maximus keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.1% compared with 1.4% at Amentum.
Maximus pays a dividend yielding 2.0%; Amentum does not pay one.
Maximus scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 9 for Amentum), 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 | AMTM | MMS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.4B | $3.4B |
| Share price | $21.95 | $64.71 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.4% | −19.7% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −20.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.21 | 0.57 |
| Employees | 50K | 37K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.4× | 9.6× (better) |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 0.6× |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 1.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.8× | 7.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 11.3× | 7.8× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.51 |
| FCF yield | 8.8% | 12.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $27.54 | $132.50 |
| Margin of safety | 20.3% | 51.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.4% (better) | −3.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 9.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 292% (better) | 17.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 113% (better) | 24.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 10.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 10.2% | 25.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 11.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.4% | 7.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.4% | 8.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 4.5% | 21.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 5.5% | 13.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.81 (better) | 0.94 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.65 | 2.51 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 6.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.52 | 2.42 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.02 | 3.04 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 1.4% |
| Buyback yield | – | 10.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 12.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.6% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 32.3% | 2.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$254K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.5% | 6.0% |
Go deeper
- AMTM stock overview
- AMTM income statement
- AMTM valuation and score
- MMS stock overview
- MMS income statement
- MMS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.