Amentum vs S&P Global
AMTM and SPGI side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AMTM and SPGI compare
S&P Global is the larger company, worth 25 times as much as Amentum ($136B against $5.4B).
On earnings, Amentum is cheaper: it trades at 26.4× trailing earnings, against 27.9× for S&P Global.
S&P Global grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.2% versus 11.4% for Amentum).
S&P Global keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 29.0% compared with 1.4% at Amentum.
S&P Global pays a dividend yielding 0.83%; Amentum does not pay one.
S&P Global scores higher on the StockData Score (21 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 | SPGI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.4B | $136B |
| Share price | $21.95 | $468.51 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.4% | −5.9% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 1.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.21 | 0.96 |
| Employees | 50K | 45K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.4× (better) | 27.9× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 7.9× |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 6.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.8× (better) | 18.9× |
| P/FCF | 11.3× (better) | 23.3× |
| PEG | – | 2.17 |
| FCF yield | 8.8% (better) | 4.3% |
| Fair value | $27.54 | $459.63 |
| Margin of safety | 20.3% (better) | −1.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.4% | 18.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 15.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 292% (better) | 18.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 113% (better) | 22.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 8.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 10.2% | 70.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 45.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.4% | 29.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.4% | 33.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 4.5% | 18.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 5.5% | 16.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.81 | 0.66 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.65 | 1.37 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 24.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.52 (better) | 0.74 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.02 | 4.88 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.83% |
| Payout ratio | – | 23.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 41.8% |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 5.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.6% | 89.5% |
| Held by insiders | 32.3% | 0.11% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | $3.6M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 14 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.5% | 1.5% |
Go deeper
- AMTM stock overview
- AMTM income statement
- AMTM valuation and score
- SPGI stock overview
- SPGI income statement
- SPGI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.